^ (five letters)
elaborate if you don’t mind me asking
According to Recognizing Crimes against the Fire Department:
SECTION 2A: Failure to comply with the Fire Department shall be defined as: refusing to comply with Fire Department personnel when they make a request of you to for the safety of others, themselves, or your own self.
1 Like
WOAH THERE.
So, I can be arrested If I want to die in a RP car crash?
1 Like
Wassup homies, it’s your main gucci style swaggalish boi host Shark and I’m here to talk about A Bill to Define "Criminal Negligence".
Let’s read the definition:
“Criminal Negligence’ shall be defined as the unintentional committing of any criminal acts.”
Hmmmmmmmmmm, this kinda sketchy as what are we considering as criminal acts? Traffic violations? Misdemeanors? Felonies?
Let’s read the next section:
“Criminal Negligence’ shall be considered a misdemeanor and shall be punished by no more than ‘300’ seconds in the Firestone State Prison with some exceptions.”
Before I read off the ones he edited, this legislation says this is for the unintentional commitment of any crime. Basically, one could say “oh he committed unintentional inflicting chaos, kidnapping, coup, treason, etc and make it into a misdemeanor instead of the felony it is. It may seem redundant but you never know if a cop may have personal interest with a certain individual and may give them less (not saying it’s like that but it can happen if this were to pass)
Now, let’s read some of the exceptions:
“Criminal Negligent Homicide’ shall be defined as the unintentional murder of another person. It shall be considered a felony and shall be punished by no more than ‘700’ seconds in the Firestone State Prison”
A: There is already a law called Involuntary Manslaughter that makes this a crime B: This type of law in Firestone is kinda ehh to me cause we have people running into bullets/getting in cross fire on purpose and now that cop is getting punished because they did it. This second one is more of a personal opinion but like I said in A, this is already a law.
“Section 2B. ‘Criminal Negligent Vehicular Assault’ shall be defined as the unintentional assault with a vehicle of a pedestrian. It shall be considered a felony and shall be punished by no more than ‘500’ seconds in the Firestone State Prison”
Again, someone can run into the street, BAM, the car hits them and they didn’t have enough time to react and now this person can be arrested when they couldn’t stop it from happening. This would hurt drivers and be a problem. Also, if a pedestrian runs out, charge them for Obstruction of Traffic but if this was added, now the driver can be punished for it when they really shouldn’t.
“Section 2C. ‘Criminal Negligent Assault’ shall be defined as the unintentional cause of physical harm of another person. It shall be considered a misdemeanor and shall be punishable as defined in Section 2.”
I have never heard of an unintentional assault. Honestly, I have never heard of this in this game. How do I unintentionally whack somebody on the head? Seems redundant honestly.
Overall, I suggest not to pass this legislation
Shark boi out 
2 Likes
Make a tonight show business about these things.
1 Like
Hmmm not a bad idea
Having negligent tacked on to an offense that requires malicious intent and or hilarious levels of recklessness is a meme
Mhm yes it is
Fund me for my late night Firestone show
who wants to support this
for suggestions or fixes please DM me ok thanks
hello, tony here, so An Act to Prevent Illicit Politics
i think this might be unconstitutional, what are ur opinions?
1 Like
see section 4 my good sir, also, we luckily got JRC to decide this 
1 Like
1 Like
well, it legit says it won’t affect your own opinion or freedom of speech so 
1 Like
Semi-unconstitutional and can already be covered under terrorism. Any group who seeks to suppress and harm the citizens and people’s of Firestone.
2 Likes
From a purely legal standpoint, I can see it going through. Our free speech is definitely limited by the TOS-so obviously Nazism, Marxism, and the likes go out the window real damn quick. Anarchism violates the Constitution in its entirety, so it goes out. And pretty much all of the banned ideologies have allowed the murder of millions. Nevertheless, the biggest challenges would be the bans on oligarchies and aristocracies. From a technical standpoint, is Congress not an oligarchy? Sure it’s not the ultimate ruling force, but they can change the law to anything they so want at any given time. And under our constitution, an aristocratic System is unconstitutional, but that wouldn’t be too hard to change. It really comes down to the SC in this one
3 Likes
The restriction of the expression of speech, regardless of how little we may agree with said speech, is the most dangerous thing to any state.
To quote Evelyn Beatrice Hall, “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”
Skye Jones
Speaker of the House
1 Like
hello, senator tony here
with this, i think its very pointless. i will still shoot escaped inmates or ones who attempt to under section 5 of my bill, A Bill to Protect the Restricted Areas
2 Likes
Congress is too dumb to know that.
I personally disagree with the shoot criminals on sight thing IRL, but it’s American policy and realistic to America. Also, boi just kill em, they pose a ‘threat’ or whatever
2 Likes