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 Relations Act, 2061
Details
Submitted by[?]: Social Dynamist Party
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: September 2063
Description[?]:
| In recognition of the culture of fear growing on our streets generated by the frightening appearance of heavily armed policemen, and of the increasingly confrontational and dangerous methods of dealing with crime, this bill would arm patrolling police with less offensive and obtrusive - but still effective - weapons. Police may, at their discretion, use weapons which would not otherwise be classed as 'standard' with greater range, insofar as accuracy and discernment are not compensated. One of the many benefits of this bill is that police officers who are not equipped for warfare are generally much more approachable. This means that firstly, witnesses will be more forthcoming, reporting of crime will increase, and the public as a whole will feel more confortable with the police. Secondly, police with a less fearsome appearance are more able to negotiate successfully with criminals in hostage situations than battle-equipped, ferocious-looking perople with huge guns. A less offensive appearance will lead to fewer criminals panicking on the sight of an officer and shooting quickly. A less offensive appearance will lead to better public relations and so greater respect for the law as a friend, rather than an enemy. A less offensive appearance makes criminals less likely to aim to acquire or trade in heavy weaponry. How long will it be before a police station suffers an attack by a mortar shell or a ballistic missile of some sort? The SDP urges you to stop the dangerous and pointless arms race between police and criminals which has been escalating over the past few years, and protect the innocent citizens of Tukarali from criminal and police violence. |
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 standard firearms apart from specially trained firearms units.
Proposed: Police officers carry standard firearms.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 14:45:08, June 03, 2005 CET | From | Social Dynamist Party | To | Debating the Police Relations Act, 2061 |
| Message | We would ask that any party wishing to oppose this motion should state why police with machine guns and assault rifles are better prepared to deal with criminals and crime than police with handguns. |
| Date | 16:22:52, June 03, 2005 CET | From | Democratic Socialist Party | To | Debating the Police Relations Act, 2061 |
| Message | Support. Will this be put to the vote before or after the election? |
| Date | 17:03:20, June 03, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Police Relations Act, 2061 |
| Message | When the criminals come up with large machine guns that they got ILLEGALLY in drug deals and other transactions that are illegal, and good mena nd women die because they don't have the firepower to fight back, I'll bring this back up. I completely am against this. (think this doesn't happen? remember the bank robbery in LA about 6 years ago? the robbers had semi automatic weapons. The cops had 45's. 4 cops died that day.) |
| Date | 17:24:04, June 03, 2005 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Police Relations Act, 2061 |
| Message | We'll take this bill under advisement. Since we have no votes, our vote won't mean much to the passing or defeat of this bill. We shall watch this carefully and see which way it goes. |
| Date | 19:20:12, June 03, 2005 CET | From | Patriot Party | To | Debating the Police Relations Act, 2061 |
| Message | We'll oppose this bill! |
| Date | 19:47:28, June 03, 2005 CET | From | Democratic Socialist Party | To | Debating the Police Relations Act, 2061 |
| Message | Automatic weapons are wildly inaccurate and distributing them would cause hundreds of accidental civilian shootings. |
| Date | 19:47:49, June 03, 2005 CET | From | Patriot Party | To | Debating the Police Relations Act, 2061 |
| Message | Then why do Crooks always seem to have them and not the cops? |
| Date | 21:45:26, June 03, 2005 CET | From | Democratic Socialist Party | To | Debating the Police Relations Act, 2061 |
| Message | What? Because criminals don't care about hurting civilians. |
| Date | 00:04:52, June 04, 2005 CET | From | Patriot Party | To | Debating the Police Relations Act, 2061 |
| Message | So we have our police armed with standard arms that have limited range and they can shoot at our cops from a range outside of the cops range. You find this to be safe for everyone? I find that comical. |
| Date | 03:14:03, June 04, 2005 CET | From | Calvinist Conservative Party | To | Debating the Police Relations Act, 2061 |
| Message | Support. |
| Date | 10:25:11, June 04, 2005 CET | From | Social Dynamist Party | To | Debating the Police Relations Act, 2061 |
| Message | Thankyou. An argument: range. Hm. The SDP will alter the bill accordingly. |
| Date | 10:31:17, June 04, 2005 CET | From | Social Dynamist Party | To | Debating the Police Relations Act, 2061 |
| Message | Done: "Police may, at their discretion, use weapons which would not otherwise be classed as 'standard' with greater range, insofar as accuracy and discernment are not compensated." Does any party have another reason why police are less able to defend against crime with standard firearms than with heavier weapons? |
| Date | 17:33:30, June 04, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Police Relations Act, 2061 |
| Message | Let me give you a rifle, and I'll take my M-16, and let's face off. While you are trying to load your single bolt action, I've put 10-20 shots in your body. I will still not support. I will hamstring on fine mena dn women like that. |
| Date | 21:00:02, June 04, 2005 CET | From | Democratic Socialist Party | To | Debating the Police Relations Act, 2061 |
| Message | Heavy assault weapons are almost useless over long range: standard police firearms would be much more accurate. |
| Date | 23:53:46, June 04, 2005 CET | From | Patriot Party | To | Debating the Police Relations Act, 2061 |
| Message | and subject our cops to being shot at by crooks who don't care who they hurt? You really need to start looking out for the people DSP. |
| Date | 00:18:56, June 05, 2005 CET | From | Social Dynamist Party | To | Debating the Police Relations Act, 2061 |
| Message | Would you prefer that police shoot with no care as to whom they hurt? I don't think the DSP is the one who needs to be looking out for the people! |
| Date | 03:43:07, June 05, 2005 CET | From | Patriot Party | To | Debating the Police Relations Act, 2061 |
| Message | Normally when there's a shoot out, its the crooks that start it most of the time. |
| Date | 05:10:31, June 05, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Police Relations Act, 2061 |
| Message | move this to a vote or withdraw it, elections are coming and we need to clear the backlog before then. |
| Date | 12:45:22, June 05, 2005 CET | From | Social Dynamist Party | To | Debating the Police Relations Act, 2061 |
| Message | "Normally when there's a shoot out, its the crooks that start it most of the time." Point being? Since no points have been made that have not been dealt with, and all parties have had ample chance to reply, we will move to the voting stage. |
| Date | 14:35:51, June 05, 2005 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the Police Relations Act, 2061 |
| Message | You didn't get it! I didn't think you would. The point is, why should our cops be outgunned? The crooks can get their hands on any known weapons and if we restrict our cops weapons, they'll be badly outgunned. We'll lose cops that way. I would rather they have the guns to even things up with the crooks. |
| Date | 16:55:06, June 05, 2005 CET | From | Social Dynamist Party | To | Debating the Police Relations Act, 2061 |
| Message | The SDP is cynical of this notion of 'outgunned'. Firstly and most importantly, in what way can these weapons be 'better'? Standard firearms will kill criminals. Secondly, criminals will always aim to go one better than police, so no matter how we arm police, the criminals will go for something more devastating. And there is no moral justification for giving police weapons of indiscriminate killing. The police will still have the guns to deal with them. We just propose that we arm them with guns which won't 'deal' with all the innocent bystanders in a 20m radius. Additionally, remember the effects of reducing crime and so forth mentioned in the definition. |
| Date | 16:59:37, June 05, 2005 CET | From | Patriot Party | To | Debating the Police Relations Act, 2061 |
| Message | By giving them standard weapons, you'll reduce crime? Now that's a load crap. Even I don't even believe that line of logic and nobody would either unless their a socialist. That's beside the point however. Your right that the crooks will try to do the cops one better however, if we continue to give military grade weapons to our cops, it drastically limits the criminals ability to out do our own police force. Come on, even I understand that. |
| Date | 19:55:05, June 05, 2005 CET | From | Democratic Socialist Party | To | Debating the Police Relations Act, 2061 |
| Message | The fact that a law could reduce crime is beside the point? |
| Date | 23:38:28, June 05, 2005 CET | From | Patriot Party | To | Debating the Police Relations Act, 2061 |
| Message | I'm still waiting on how this'll reduce crime! |
| Date | 23:42:48, June 05, 2005 CET | From | Social Dynamist Party | To | Debating the Police Relations Act, 2061 |
| Message | "Even I don't even believe that line of logic" That's not a line of logic. Please do not twist the words of others. It is the outcome of many lines of logic which the PP has not even made an attempt to refute. "and nobody would either unless their [sic] a socialist." A pity certain other ideologies do not embrace rational thought. "to out do " The only way thay'd be outdoing the police is in their capability for mass killing. We will never support arming a police force for wanton murder. |
| Date | 23:52:30, June 05, 2005 CET | From | Patriot Party | To | Debating the Police Relations Act, 2061 |
| Message | And yet the crooks spark more shootouts than the other way around. The cops defend the people the crooks kill the people and the cops kill the crooks to defend the people from getting killed by said crooks. Sorry buddy but I do have rational thought. To bad you don't because apparently you have no idea what the hell type of guns that crooks get that can outshoot the cops any day of the year. The only way to even the odds is to give our cops the same weapons. Only that way can our people be protected as well as our police forces. |
| Date | 00:33:10, June 06, 2005 CET | From | Social Dynamist Party | To | Debating the Police Relations Act, 2061 |
| Message | "The cops defend the people the crooks kill the people and the cops kill the crooks to defend the people from getting killed by said crooks" The PP has consistently failed to ignore the point that this bill takes issue with the fact that police also kill innocent bystanders when armed with weapons of war. Why does the PP refuse to explain what it means to 'outgun' or 'outshoot'? "I'm still waiting on how this'll reduce crime!" We're still waiting for a reason why it won't that does not rely on some nebulous or nonexistent definition of outgun. |
| Date | 02:00:46, June 06, 2005 CET | From | Patriot Party | To | Debating the Police Relations Act, 2061 |
| Message | You don't know what I mean? I find that hard to believe. You should know full well what I mean but apparently your incapable. Your supposed to be making a case that it does. Do your job. |
| Date | 09:13:23, June 06, 2005 CET | From | Social Dynamist Party | To | Debating the Police Relations Act, 2061 |
| Message | "Your supposed to be making a case that it does. Do your job" What, like posting: "In recognition of the culture of fear growing on our streets generated by the frightening appearance of heavily armed policemen, and of the increasingly confrontational and dangerous methods of dealing with crime, this bill would arm patrolling police with less offensive and obtrusive - but still effective - weapons. Police may, at their discretion, use weapons which would not otherwise be classed as 'standard' with greater range, insofar as accuracy and discernment are not compensated. One of the many benefits of this bill is that police officers who are not equipped for warfare are generally much more approachable. This means that firstly, witnesses will be more forthcoming, reporting of crime will increase, and the public as a whole will feel more confortable with the police. Secondly, police with a less fearsome appearance are more able to negotiate successfully with criminals in hostage situations than battle-equipped, ferocious-looking perople with huge guns. A less offensive appearance will lead to fewer criminals panicking on the sight of an officer and shooting quickly. A less offensive appearance will lead to better public relations and so greater respect for the law as a friend, rather than an enemy. A less offensive appearance makes criminals less likely to aim to acquire or trade in heavy weaponry. How long will it be before a police station suffers an attack by a mortar shell or a ballistic missile of some sort? The SDP urges you to stop the dangerous and pointless arms race between police and criminals which has been escalating over the past few years, and protect the innocent citizens of Tukarali from criminal and police violence." "Would you prefer that police shoot with no care as to whom they hurt?" "Firstly and most importantly, in what way can these weapons be 'better'? Standard firearms will kill criminals. Secondly, criminals will always aim to go one better than police, so no matter how we arm police, the criminals will go for something more devastating. And there is no moral justification for giving police weapons of indiscriminate killing. The police will still have the guns to deal with them. We just propose that we arm them with guns which won't 'deal' with all the innocent bystanders in a 20m radius." How many reasons do you need, for goodness' sake? |
| Date | 16:22:30, June 06, 2005 CET | From | Patriot Party | To | Debating the Police Relations Act, 2061 |
| Message | And if this passed (Thank God it wont) the crooks would hav more firepower than the cops. Apparently you don't put the safety of our cops at the top of your list. They are on the front lines day in and day out against these thugs armed with whatever weapons they can get their grubby little hands on. They will be able to shoot at longer ranges and outside of our cops gun ranges. That puts the lives of the cops at risk as well as the citizens. By arming our police force with military weapons, we at least even the odds against these thugs and the cops can do their job of defending the populace that much more effectively. |
| Date | 16:49:57, June 06, 2005 CET | From | Patriot Party | To | Debating the Police Relations Act, 2061 |
| Message | BTW: The Tribal Council has rejected this bill. |
| Date | 20:48:47, June 06, 2005 CET | From | Social Dynamist Party | To | Debating the Police Relations Act, 2061 |
| Message | "Apparently you don't put the safety of our cops at the top of your list" Correct. Tukaralian citizens come first. |
| Date | 03:05:59, June 07, 2005 CET | From | Calvinist Conservative Party | To | Debating the Police Relations Act, 2061 |
| Message | Argh, if I had been online I would have voted yes |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 58 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 162 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 61 |
| Random fact: Moderation will not accept Cultural Protocol updates which introduce, on a significant scale, cultures which are likely to be insufficiently accessible to players. In particular, for all significant cultures in Particracy, it should be easy for players to access and use online resources to assist with language translation and the generation of character names. Moderation reserves the right to amend Cultural Protocols which are deemed to have introduced significant cultures that are not sufficiently accessible and which are not being actively role-played with. |
| Random quote: "A man who has no office to go to - I don't care who he is - is a trial of which you can have no conception." - George Bernard Shaw |