This has to pass. And other states need to follow suit. It's ridiculous any law enforcement can hide who they are unless they're undercover.
The thin blue line is how much responsibility they're willing to accept. And it's a very very thin line right now.
Doesn't matter if it passes. The president doesn't abide by the law, so they don't need to either.
Plus, who is going to enforce it, cops? Lol
Has an undercover cop ever really benefited the people?
I'd love to be corrected on this, but when it comes to cops, I'ma doubt that real fucking fast.
"Oh? You want to "detain" my student/employee/friend/partner? You have to prove you're a law enforcement official and are legally-allowed to."
If that sounds unreasonable to anyone... you're the extremist.
It's totally reasonable, but it'll probably also get you deported to El Salvador. Or at the very least beat.
This should also include identification on vehicles.
None of this unmarked pickup truck or white van bullshit.
This includes the "ghost letter" bullshit. They claim it's so they can blend in and catch violations as they happen. Bro everyone can see a cop driving from a mile away by the way they drive, the reinforced grill, the slightly beefier trim to hide the installed lights, etc.
Oh you mean pre-crime, we absolutely need to violate your rights to prevent pre-crime.
Encourage them to wear identification? ENCOURAGE them?!? How that is not and has not always been mandatory is beyond me.
Good... personal freedom and all that
If this law is enacted, the Supreme Court will say that states can't frustrate the operations of federal agents with these sorts of laws. Chief Justice Roberts will write the opinion and compare it to giving states the power to ban bulletproof vests from being worn by federal law enforcement and call it "a step from anarchy". Clarence Thomas will then write a concurring opinion saying that federal agents acting on orders from the president should actually be immune for any type of civil or criminal liability for any of their actions, lawful or not.
Then, when a Democratic president takes office the court will walk it back and say "well, actually, there's this exception, and this exception, and that exception..."
Stop hogging the time machine, give someone else a chance to document inevitable future
Then, when a Democratic president takes office the court will walk it back and say “well, actually, there’s this exception, and this exception, and that exception…”
Or they won't, because the Dem president will simply "not abuse such powers" due to their "adherence to decorum".
The SC made the president god-king while Biden was in office.
How would they enforce this, if they can’t identify the people violating it?
Stop anyone with a mask attempting to do ICE stuff.
Who will do the stopping?
Unarmed citizens, apparently, have the guts. Do law enforcement?
Rifles in hand, ideally
How can they prosecute someone who fights back when the person they fought was wearing a mask? It would be self defence.
Wearing masks isn't the issue, it's the lack of warrants and identification.
Yep. There's a non-zero chance that maga civilians are dressing tactical and kidnapping people they believe shouldn't be here. I hope not, but there's really no way to know either way at this point.
there are exceptions and there is "encouragement" to wear identification. this will do nothing.
The exceptions are actually logical not broad. The only questionable exception that seems open to abuse is "health reasons".
But the ones we need to be worried about can't read anyway.
The only questionable exception that seems open to abuse is "health reasons".
Brought to you by the "I can't breathe in a mask, COVID isn't real" crowd
You should not be under any obligation to assume or respect any proposed authority by a person unwilling to show you their face.
This sentence should not need to be spoken.
Conversely, I should not be required to show my face to anyone if I'm not trying to assert authority over them. Being a public servant means having a public identity, being a private citizen means you have the freedom to make choices about what you share.
Good. Let the cowards face their victims
It has a carve-out for medical masks, so get ready for ICE to abuse the shit out of that if it passes.
I don't understand how it's even legal right now.
Why would they need exceptions?
Only really practical exception I can think of is when responding to fires or hazardous chemical releases (not caused by them just chucking teargas all over the place) or when working in hospitals or other indoor locations where there is an extremely high likelihood of encountering someone who is immunocompromised since they probably aren't up to date on their shots.
In these situations, other forms of identification should be incredibly prominently visible.
Edit for the latter since I know I'm gonna get "whatabouts": officer should be performing roles that necessitate their presence and are providing safety against clear and present threats, e.g., protection details, wellness checks, or collecting evidence. Not deporting children with leukemia or some such vile fuckery.
I'm required to wear a photo id visible at all times while I'm at work as a cable lineman. Wear all the silly hats you want, long as your badge/Id visible and presented when asked.
Wild these papers please people can't figure it out for themselves.
If I see some goon kidnap someone ima involve myself.
Citizens arrest I’ll shout
Stop resisting I’ll shout.
What’s good for the goose
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.