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: P.I. 4316 Reinstating Proper Law Enforcement
Details
Submitted by[?]: Hedensk Allianse
Status[?]: passed
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: February 4317
Description[?]:
| The streets of Kazulia are littered with criminals, and our police, in many cases, do not have the authority to stop it. If we have laws, they must be enforced. Is it not the right of Kazulian citizens to be safe? |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy towards police presence.
Old value:: Presence of the police is left to the local governments.
Current: The police patrol public property at all times.
Proposed: The police patrol public property at all times.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Police searches.
Old value:: The police cannot search a person or their property without their consent unless the police have obtained a warrant from a court.
Current: The police cannot search a person or their property without their consent unless the police have obtained a warrant from a court or in cases of imminent danger.
Proposed: The police cannot search a person or their property without their consent unless the police have obtained a warrant from a court or in cases of imminent danger.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 03:18:45, December 12, 2017 CET | From | Kjerne | To | Debating the P.I. 4316 Reinstating Proper Law Enforcement |
| Message | Herr Huspresident, Of course it must be the right of our citizens to remain assured that they can trust the laws shall be upheld. I don't think though that we shall do a better job than the local governments at allocating the police forces. Dogmatically deciding that there shall be patrolling everywhere and always we do not think is efficient. It will be a waste of police manpower. The second article is hard to evaluate. We could agree to it if "imminent danger" is well defined. Anyway, for article 1, we will vote no. -Roald Storstrand (Kj) |
| Date | 03:28:36, December 12, 2017 CET | From | Hedensk Allianse | To | Debating the P.I. 4316 Reinstating Proper Law Enforcement |
| Message | Herr Huspresident, Local governments also get to "decide" whether or not police presence is required. Police should be allowed to do their job as mandated by the national government. Some regions are richer than others, and we need to have our police where we need them most. Patrolling public property is more efficient than what we have now, and what IS a waste of police manpower is having our police sit on their behinds. Imminent danger is defined as any situation where any individual is subject to harm, or the threat of harm. -Halvor Aandahl |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 100 | ||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 93 | ||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Players are expected to play the game independently and should not share their passwords or allow others to access their accounts. |
| Random quote: "Every month we do not have an economic recovery package, 500 million Americans lose their jobs." - Nancy Pelosi |