Advertisement

by Tectonix » Wed May 24, 2017 8:17 pm

by Improved werpland » Wed May 24, 2017 8:32 pm

by Natanians and Nosts » Wed May 24, 2017 9:05 pm

by House of Judah » Wed May 24, 2017 9:18 pm
Natanians and Nosts wrote:I have one question to ask.
Firstly,according to §4,the Federal Police needs authorisation to perform investigations and surveillance,but it assumes that investigation and surveillance can be made without previous authorisation,if so I ask why to void these proofs and why not let the judiciary powers to decide whether it is worth to use the proofs?

by FreYhill » Wed May 24, 2017 10:04 pm

by Costa Fierro » Thu May 25, 2017 1:40 am
House of Judah wrote:"Mister President, I have a few concerns with this act as written. Starting with the first concern, there is no mention of theft, assault, murder and a number of other crimes against person or property in the jurisdiction of the Federal Police. These are among the most direct and clear forms of criminal acts and should be included within the provisions of this act.
"Second, while I would not want our people to fear a police force that may be too quick too apply lethal force, I am concerned that the framework for deadly force laid out in this act may be too narrow. The wording could easily leave us in scenario where an armed perpetrator is [i]threatening[/u] to cause harm but has not yet discharged a firearm or otherwise caused harm with their weapon and the court finding that under such circumstances a law enforcement officer will be unable to discharge their firearm in that circumstance.
"My third point of concern is in the process of selecting a Commissioner or a Commander. The process calls out senior administrators but these remain rather poorly defined. It would be greatly appreciated if the author could clarify these points."

by House of Judah » Thu May 25, 2017 6:02 am
Costa Fierro wrote:"Mister President, as one of the co-draftees of the act currently at debate, as well as it's original draftee, I shall rise and answer the questions from the Honourable Senator." da Costa then takes a sip of water and gargles it slightly to clear his throat.
"With regards to the first question, the idea of the Federal Police is that it is a police force that enforces laws at a federal level or investigates crimes that cross multiple jurisdictions. Petty crimes such as theft, and other serious crimes are the jurisdiction of local police forces. If they were, the Federal Police would be overstretched investigating every single crime in the country. It simply would not have the resources to do so and it would be better to let local establishments handle these cases."
"With regards to the second question, the law specifically is designed to prevent unnecessary discharges of firearms by officers. In your scenario, officers would be able to apprehend or subdue the person in question with non-lethal means, such as tasers. In this respect it would not require the use of firearms as the person would realise that if they did discharge their weapon, officers would be compelled to do so too, thus reducing the chances of criminals running amok with firearms."
"With regards to your third question, it is ironic that you ask for clarification yet have not clarified what it is that you need clarification over."

by Roosevetania » Thu May 25, 2017 7:59 am
FreYhill wrote:election as President of the Senate
FreYhill wrote:A kind hearted woman
by Martune » Thu May 25, 2017 9:14 am

by Tectonix » Thu May 25, 2017 1:04 pm
Martune wrote:in the lobby

by Costa Fierro » Thu May 25, 2017 11:21 pm
House of Judah wrote:"Mister President, while they may not be specifically focused on such localized crime, surely all criminal offenses established by federal law should be the within the purview of a federal police force. Especially since as currently written, federal law enforcement would be barred from pursuing such charges against suspects when the crimes were discovered incident to an investigation which has not resulted in charges laid out in this act.
"I'm afraid that a person who has found themselves facing off with law enforcement are not always the most rational, leaving such game-theory analyses less reliable as a predictor of behavior. I also must wonder how such concerns would not be better alleviated by Article IV of the Constitution and a more conventional set of criminal laws, such as homicide or reckless endangerment."
"Finally, since it seems to be lost on my colleague, I wish to know what exactly 'senior administrators' are defined as and how they are selected."

by Beta Test » Thu May 25, 2017 11:26 pm

by Maklohi Vai » Thu May 25, 2017 11:36 pm

by Costa Fierro » Thu May 25, 2017 11:39 pm

by Collatis » Thu May 25, 2017 11:47 pm
PRO: social democracy, internationalism, progressivism, democracy,
republicanism, human rights, democratic socialism, Keynesianism,
EU, NATO, two-state solution, Democratic Party, Bernie Sanders
CON: conservatism, authoritarianism, totalitarianism, neoliberalism,
death penalty, Marxism-Leninism, laissez faire, reaction, fascism,
antisemitism, isolationism, Republican Party, Donald Trump
Voting Through The Ages | Voter Guide | The Presidents | Voting Without Borders

by Tasimah » Thu May 25, 2017 11:52 pm


by FreYhill » Fri May 26, 2017 1:13 am

by Stojam » Fri May 26, 2017 3:25 am


by Roosevetania » Fri May 26, 2017 5:36 am


by Malgrave » Fri May 26, 2017 11:32 am
Frenequesta wrote:Well-dressed mad scientists with an edge.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement