I want to say this is good, but if you look at the "exemptions" for when law enforcement wearing masks is fine, it covers basically any and every possible scenario. So to me it just seems a performative act to make it seem like they are doing something while doing nothing at all.
Historically, establishing a right with exceptions then subsequently eliminating those exceptions has been effective method of effecting change in the US government system.
E.g. the famous Marbury v. Madison decision that effected no action in that instance but substantially shaped the relationship between the branches by establishing the federal court system's power of judicial review
> They didn't ban criminals from wearing masks, they didn't tell criminals that they had to identify themselves," Bianco said while campaigning in Northern California on Friday. "Every single person that voted for that needs to be eliminated in the next election. Anyone that votes for those people are absolute idiots.
I question the intelligence of suggesting that police should be held to the same standard as criminals. "If the bad guys can do it, we should be able to do it!" Is a wild take.
The core tenet that makes someone the good guy is "we treat them better than they would treat us". It's so disappointing to see the people who are supposed to be the good guys advocating they should be able to be as cruel as the bad guys they exist to prevent.
Am I missing something?
> Bianco said while campaigning in Northern California on Friday. "Every single person that voted for that needs to be eliminated in the next election. Anyone that votes for those people are absolute idiots.
holy shit, "eliminated" is not the appropriate word here... what is wrong with this guy? (other than uncontrolled anger?)
I'm starting to see this everywhere. "There was no due process when illegal immigrants hopped the border" and "Laken Riley didn't get any due process" are widespread talking points at this point. Kavanaugh talks about how the goal of the criminal is to evade the law when considering the balance of equities in his concurrence on racial profiling in ICE stops.
I've even seen comments here and on reddit of people saying that the exclusionary rule should be eliminated, since if somebody is a criminal they shouldn't get constitutional protections.
It is worth remembering that the idea that the constitution seriously protects even those who really did crimes is pretty radical. Things that we consider to be baked into our judicial system (the exclusionary rule, miranda warnings) are not terribly old and were extremely controversial when first established. Congress passed a whole law saying that Miranda v Arizona was invalid (which they don't have the power to do). This means that we need active work to protect it.
In addition to that, you don't need to ban criminals from wearing masks because you can already arrest them for the crime they're doing. And also pretty sure you can identify them after that one way or the other. It's a dumb take throughout.
> Yes, what you're missing is that you are intentionally conflating "same standard" when you imply that the criminal standard is voluntary and the LE standard is legal.
This is hard for me to parse, what are you trying to say?
> See your quip about the criminals "than they would treat us" and "able to be as cruel". Voluntary behavior of the criminals. Which is not under discussion.
No, you misunderstood what I was trying to explain. The concept I was trying to explain and reinforce was that the cops should be the good guys. Good compared to what? The behavior of criminals. So it is a part of the expectations for the behavior of police. Or in other words, it's a mistake for Bianco to set the standard of behavior for the good guys, at the level of behavior we see from the bad guys. We should hold cops to a higher standard.
I.e. like you, I agree that it's wrong to compare the actions of police to the actions of criminals. everyone should hold the actions of police on their own, an ask is this what the good guy would do?
The en vogue 'Supreme Court always sides with the Administration' is a lazy and inaccurate take. (That's usually used to justify 'And that's why I don't need to spend time looking into the actual details and just give up')
If people actually took the time to read the opinions [0], they'd realize...
1. Many of the 'allow the administration to continue' rulings are overriding stays, rather than actual decisions. Those cases are still pending in the courts and will eventually end up back at the Supreme Court.
2. Of the actual Supreme Court decisions, the news typically gives the most dumbed-down, hot take version.
3. Even to people without a legal background, much of the decision or dissent is written in plain English, attempts to lay out the rationale, and can be read by anyone with a secondary education.
Yeah, they're cops. Cops aren't going to arrest other cops. Their superpower is being the people who are supposed to enforce the law, if they decide to break it who is going to stop them?
> Uncle Sam has the biggest military on Earth. State troopers wouldn’t last longer than the time to deploy
This is civil war. In a civil war there is no Uncle Sam. Just human beings from different states and of different political persuasions who need to decide what they do with their firepower, and whose orders they obey.
That's not true at all. Congress could remove Trump in a week if they weren't complicit. SCOTUS could put a stop to much of the stuff he's doing if they weren't complicit.
Congress and the judiciary are misbehaving as well, otherwise either one could easily put a stop to the destructionists. In fact one might say the manic demented guy barking orders at the rest of the executive is just a deliberate attention-drawing point of a much wider conspiracy.
I don’t believe they’d leave with their own in jeopardy. However, we’re deep into uncharted territory here so hard to say definitively how it would all go down.
What section of US law they're activated/deployed under determines whether or not they can legally be used in an internal law enforcement capacity.
And generally speaking, federalized forces (either active or NG) cannot ever be used as law enforcement.
Hence why, despite the posturing and marketing of 'sending the military in', this administration is specifically using federalized military forces only in non-law enforcement capacities (and then encouraging the freed up state/local law enforcement to focus on law enforcement).
The national guard was illegally deployed over a fake emergency, but AFAIK the troops themselves did not perform any additional constitutional violations.
I'd say it's high time for state governors to start deploying their National Guards to keep order. The federal gangs are deliberately stirring up chaos to create new pretexts for the assertion of federal control. In addition to the obvious problem of the masked kidnap gangs undermining public trust and order, there have been many reports of groups of vehicles with federal plates forming moving blockades on highways, assaulting motorists, etc - seemingly whatever they can do to try and create confrontational situations. A straightforward guess is that these aren't even yesterday's officers with a nominal desire to uphold the law and go home at the end of the day, but rather loser militia types that have been quickly deputized to go into "blue states" and create problems for their perceived enemies.
Deploying Guards would also be a good way to start building some institutional momentum for defending our country - preempting following illegal orders (like what happened in CA), sussing out traitors in the chain of command, and mitigating the dynamic where much of traditional state law enforcement is sympathetic to the destructionists.
But doesn't claiming that immunity require them to identify themselves as such? In which case identification to claim immunity to the law also happens to involve complying with the law.
I'm surprised this needed to be a law. Or wasn't already one?
Or maybe I'm just surprised that a group of law enforcement officers would decide, "Hey, we don't want people to know who we are," and decide to wear masks.
"…I think this is what the state of California is trying to do. Establish limits as to how much the federal government can do within the jurisdiction of the state. It's an issue of state sovereignty."
More of the Cold Civil War playing out. (Also see coastal states forming health cooperatives (?) so that their citizens can get COVID vaccines, etc.)
> Or maybe I'm just surprised that a group of law enforcement officers would decide, "Hey, we don't want people to know who we are," and decide to wear masks.
It would be nice to be surprised. It _should_ be surprising. It's unfortunately not surprising at all.
Youth services has been hiding the names of their employees for more than a decade now. A few years back the final shoe dropped: now kids aren't even allowed to know the name of the judge that took them away from their home anymore.
They cite, of course, the same argument ICE makes: threats against them.
Is that legal? Well, their theory is that any kind of "family law" proceeding (including convicting minors of crimes, and locking them up without access to family or schooling for years) is considered civil law. Therefore none of the normal legal rights apply. I would think this is trivially a violation of the constitution, especially because it comes to imprisonment, but clearly it is not, since the justice department has no problems doing it. A child can be locked up for a crime (up to when they get 27 years old, yes, not 18, in some states), even if the present proof they didn't do it. The very, very, very basic legal right to not get convicted of a crime that you didn't do is openly violated by youth services. Right to have a trial? Nope. Right to having the state prove their case? Nope. Right to not get locked up without cause? No. Etc.
Needless to say, this was promptly exploited by some states who gave kickbacks to judges who "delivered" juveniles for private detention facilities. When caught doing this, the justice department promptly declared nobody had done anything wrong (except one of the judges who, in addition to having thousands of kids locked up for money, had lied on his taxes. He was never actually imprisoned, and finally pardoned by the president)
Oh and in case you don't know: locking minors away from school? Yes. Youth services does that. Parents aren't allowed to do that. Schools aren't allowed to do that. The police isn't allowed to do that (minor gets arrested, and wants to go to classes or do your homework? Police has to make it happen). Fucking death row isn't allowed to keep a minor out of school. But youth services IS allowed to do it.
So a secret police in the US? This is not new. What's new is that immigration enforcement started doing it on a large scale.
The US has used civil law to remove all kinds of rights. A person can make a plea deal (civil/contract law) that supersedes the government having to observe that persons constitutional rights and can erase all of their constitutional rights.
The government shouldn't be able to threaten you with 50 years in prison if you don't give up your rights. And they definitely shouldn't be able to tell a just that the agreement/plea wasn't coerced. But here we are.
Well, the governor of California represents 14% of the US economy, more than the smallest 25 other governors added together. Something about California works for free market capitalism and thats easier to cover than a big group of other states.
You’re minding your own business when a police officer approaches you. They start asking questions, but something feels off. You ask for their name and badge number, but they refuse. What do you do?
As a citizen, you want to trust and cooperate with law enforcement, but you also have rights that must be protected. The question of whether police officers are legally required to identify themselves when asked is a complex one, with no easy answers.
In general, no, a police officer does not have to identify themselves even if you ask them—making it even more important to invoke your right to silence no matter who you think you’re talking to.
California Penal Code Section 830.10 states:
“Any uniformed peace officer shall wear a badge, nameplate, or other device which bears clearly on its face the identification number or name of the officer.”
However, there are a couple of key issues with this law that limit its effectiveness in ensuring police accountability:
The law only applies to uniformed officers, meaning that plainclothes officers or those working undercover are not required to wear any identifying information.
Even for uniformed officers, the law doesn’t explicitly require them to make their badge number or name easily visible or accessible to the public. An officer could potentially wear their identifying information in a manner that is obscured or difficult to read.
> An officer could potentially wear their identifying information in a manner that is obscured or difficult to read.
Yeah... but they could also not wear a badge. I doubt that'll fly
> or other device which bears clearly on its face the identification number or name of the officer.
Any reasonable court would find that wearing a badge in a manner that obscured the number or name would not be "clearly wearing" said badge. Is the officer an ethical person who makes a good faith attempt to follow the law they're hired to uphold, and will the court be reasonable are both questions that don't change what the law clearly expects and requires.
What about when your next door neighbor is walking down your street when an unmarked van pulls up and a bunch of masked men in plain clothes grab her off the street and throw her in the van? (Which literally is what is happening)
Hiding their identity completely undermines accountability.
It's also an extremely glaring public safety risk to normalize people who refuse to identify themselves using force and guns to grab and pull people off the street with nothing more than a "trust me, bro".
How a I supposed to know that the masked person hauling off my neighbour is, in fact, actual law enforcement? How can I be sure they will ever even see that courtroom?
Did I just witness an arrest or a kidnapping? Who knows! And when the police become secret police, is there a difference?
Typically, you wouldn’t need to - they are supposed to have their names and ID’s on their badges.
And as long as you’re not actively interfering with something they are doing, yes you can and should be able to do exactly that.
Because you’re a member of the public, and you should be able to complain and if they are doing something bad, they should actually be held accountable to it.
Crazy eh?
ICE and the like know what they’re doing, and why.
Ignoring your obvious straw man about criminal allegation details, surely you are aware that the law and morally correct or societally important behavior patterns are not the same thing. Indeed, there's no law saying that the law need align with what's actually good for the electorate. Waving your hands at "the law" when discussing ethics, justice, fundamental rights, societal good, and the prevention of falling directly into a boots-on-necks martial state is a stupid game that leads nowhere. Laws change.
They're just going say that they're federal and not bound by state law, aren't law enforcement they're immigration enforcement, or that they're undercover.
In theory, the actual individuals are still bound by state law, but the supremacy clause allows federal laws made in pursuance of the US Constitution to preempt those state laws. Of course, these laws still need to be "necessary and proper" for carrying out an express power like regulating immigration. A law that is unnecessary or improper would theoretically not hold up in court. The same goes for executive action.
Perhaps the most infamous case of this was the Idaho manslaughter case against FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi for killing Vicki Weaver in the Ruby Ridge incident. His case was simply "removed" to federal court and dismissed under the supremacy clause (although this dismissal was later overturned narrowly when appealed).
I didn't, but if I would have down voted you it was because I'm not sure I believe you, and you didn't cite law, statue, or court decision confirming your claim. Or explain why you claim to believe that...
Both would be important parts of a useful comment. Perhaps the problem isn't disagreement, but your comment was just low effort that appears to come from anger and frustration?
Because your other toxic comments are getting flagged, I felt this one deserved a response.
> Show me the law that says my nosy neighbor should be allowed to walk over to my house and demand to know the names of the cops are who are talking to me, and force them to reveal what crime I am being accused of, what evidence they have, etc.
The US has constantly upheld the rights of the citizens to record the actions of police.
But it's also explicitly required by law in CA
The right to record: CA Penal Code 1. 15. 1.5 - Section 632.
> [right to privacy from being recorded] but excludes a communication made in a public gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive, or administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.
Uniform police are required to wear identification: CA Penal Code 2.3 4.5 - Peace Officers Section 830.10.
> 830.10. Any uniformed peace officer shall wear a badge, nameplate, or other device which bears clearly on its face the identification number or name of the officer.
In addition to that most police departments (maybe all of them) in CA have policies that officers need to identify clear themselves when asked. It's also interesting to watch some of the "audit the police" videos on youtube. The asshole cops never want to identify, but the good ones behaving like cops you'd want to interact with, are all eager to share their identity. There's one video I remember where a cop, who was being a shitbag, said "we don't have cards" when asked for one, and two other cops also there, the ones worthy of being cops, instantly corrected him and both gave their card to him. So quickly I'm sure it's department policy to do so. One of them giving the shitbag cop the stink eye for lying to him.
Good cops don't feel the need to hide who they are.
> No one is talking about "recording". Of course you can record anyone in a public space. You're moving the goalposts.
that's an unhelpful amount of pedantry, but sure you got me, you said walk over and demanded a bunch of information.... which you might notice, no one else said either. The discussion was about if identifying police was legal.
sigh
> Also lol @ "toxic". Sometimes I forget that people can be offended by insufficient outrage.
> In a famous example you might have heard of, the federal government can overrule states' laws legalizing slavery, and make it illegal nationwide.
This is a very demeaning way to phrase this, it's dripping with disgust and contempt. You may not have intended either, but without a doubt both are included by phrasing it this way.
Because both are divisive and obstacles to a fair and healthy conversation, that makes them toxic. As in harmful to others, or the discussion.
Is that a fair interpretation of your comment? IMO, Yes. But even if you elect to disagree, in a very heated thread a reasonable person knows to expect their messages will be read in the context of frustration which makes negative inferences much more likely. A good person who wants to be understood will take care to avoid that. But a toxic person will embed such language ignorantly or intentionally to stir up shit.
A lot of people probably would call insufficient outrage toxic; but that's not why I did. It doesn't have to be about insufficient outrage, when you elect to write things in a way that appears to imply contemt (instead of collaboration) for the people who you're trying to talk to, that's toxic.
No idea if you meant to or not, but that is the message you sent to everyone who down voted you. So really the question remains, are you trying to be dismissive and disrespectful to the people you're talking to? Or are you just bad at communicating with people who you disagree with?
> I didn't feel the need to cite a fundamental tenet of US history.
That omission is why you got downvoted though.
I also don't think they can just ignore state law without an existing federal law allowing them to ignore it. Is there an existing federal law that says they can wear masks?
I don't think the administration will care if their acctions break state law when they already blatantly ignore the supreme cours and the constitution every day.
I'm think they should be stopped, but i don't think this will be effective, we need to reflect deeply on why this is happening to create a coherent sound plan as how to stop and prevent it.
Because California understands (or at least some of us do) the catastrophic effect on public safety if the general population starts to feel like they can't trust the police.
Police using masks is so dehumanizing, and causes fear and confusion among most citizens, that it will cause the loss of trust and that can't be permitted because it's nearly impossible to restore trust once it's lost.
> Why is California going after the people enforcing the law instead of the ones breaking it?
oh, was this a bad faith question? did I get baited?
> Not from them protecting themselves from the threats from the public.
I think you unintentionally found a nugget of truth here. The police aren't hiding their identity from criminals, they're hiding their identity from the public. The whole public, non criminals included, have decided their behavior is unacceptable, and want them to be known and held to account for their actions.
I don't want police that feel they need to hide from the public they're sworn to protect. That feels like it's an unacceptable moral hazard to me.
> Then the public shouldn't be doxing and making death threats on the officers, their spouses, and their children. Nor should they be allowed to set fire to ICE buildings, throw rocks at officers and their vehicles.
It might surprise you, but I agree with you. But I'm not gonna suggest anyone should roll over and just take it, when they see something they consider to be abusive. And I don't know what other options the public has to hold individuals to account for their actions. Humanity, well a large portion of it, has already learned the lesson of why "I was just following orders" can't be tolerated. And how individuals need some motivation to decide if they're behaving in a way that the public will tolerate.
To steal an idea that I detest, but I do hear often from police, (the subject of this point) Publishing the identity of someone shouldn't be a threat to anyone who has nothing to hide. Why do the police have something to hide?
> This is where California should come in and cooperate with LEO to stop this behavior and be outspoken against it. Instead, they're feeding the fire.
What would you suggest as the behavior you'd like to see from CA to cooperate with LEO (I assume you mean ICE), and what behavior should stop? I hope it's not "roll over and let ICE do whatever they want." Because like I said, I can't advocate anyone just accept watching others get abused by a system they believe is unfair.
I mean, people have anxiety about some things, but I don't. And I would gladly walk around any street in CA, you're welcome to join me for a walk in any area you choose?
All officials of the state should be identifiable.
Right now anyone in a mask can kidnap anyone off the street and who can tell if they're a legitimate officer or not? I will not be surprised if this leads to tragic outcomes where either ICE officials are shot, or the person who is resisting with good cause.
Law enforcement has never needed to hide their identities before - and they should not.
If they had instead decided to make a numeric identifier visible then this would be a very different conversation. This would have met your requirement while still holding these people accountable for their actions.
But that's not what they did. They want complete anonymity so they can break the law in heinous ways.
If they were identifiable in some other way then your argument might hold water. But it doesn't. Masks are not to protect their identity.
I want to say this is good, but if you look at the "exemptions" for when law enforcement wearing masks is fine, it covers basically any and every possible scenario. So to me it just seems a performative act to make it seem like they are doing something while doing nothing at all.
Historically, establishing a right with exceptions then subsequently eliminating those exceptions has been effective method of effecting change in the US government system.
E.g. the famous Marbury v. Madison decision that effected no action in that instance but substantially shaped the relationship between the branches by establishing the federal court system's power of judicial review
> They didn't ban criminals from wearing masks, they didn't tell criminals that they had to identify themselves," Bianco said while campaigning in Northern California on Friday. "Every single person that voted for that needs to be eliminated in the next election. Anyone that votes for those people are absolute idiots.
I question the intelligence of suggesting that police should be held to the same standard as criminals. "If the bad guys can do it, we should be able to do it!" Is a wild take.
The core tenet that makes someone the good guy is "we treat them better than they would treat us". It's so disappointing to see the people who are supposed to be the good guys advocating they should be able to be as cruel as the bad guys they exist to prevent.
Am I missing something?
> Bianco said while campaigning in Northern California on Friday. "Every single person that voted for that needs to be eliminated in the next election. Anyone that votes for those people are absolute idiots.
holy shit, "eliminated" is not the appropriate word here... what is wrong with this guy? (other than uncontrolled anger?)
I'm starting to see this everywhere. "There was no due process when illegal immigrants hopped the border" and "Laken Riley didn't get any due process" are widespread talking points at this point. Kavanaugh talks about how the goal of the criminal is to evade the law when considering the balance of equities in his concurrence on racial profiling in ICE stops.
I've even seen comments here and on reddit of people saying that the exclusionary rule should be eliminated, since if somebody is a criminal they shouldn't get constitutional protections.
It is worth remembering that the idea that the constitution seriously protects even those who really did crimes is pretty radical. Things that we consider to be baked into our judicial system (the exclusionary rule, miranda warnings) are not terribly old and were extremely controversial when first established. Congress passed a whole law saying that Miranda v Arizona was invalid (which they don't have the power to do). This means that we need active work to protect it.
Moral relativism leads people to narrative extremes to justify behavior.
In addition to that, you don't need to ban criminals from wearing masks because you can already arrest them for the crime they're doing. And also pretty sure you can identify them after that one way or the other. It's a dumb take throughout.
The part you’re confused by is the ‘supposed to be the good guys’.
[flagged]
> Yes, what you're missing is that you are intentionally conflating "same standard" when you imply that the criminal standard is voluntary and the LE standard is legal.
This is hard for me to parse, what are you trying to say?
> See your quip about the criminals "than they would treat us" and "able to be as cruel". Voluntary behavior of the criminals. Which is not under discussion.
No, you misunderstood what I was trying to explain. The concept I was trying to explain and reinforce was that the cops should be the good guys. Good compared to what? The behavior of criminals. So it is a part of the expectations for the behavior of police. Or in other words, it's a mistake for Bianco to set the standard of behavior for the good guys, at the level of behavior we see from the bad guys. We should hold cops to a higher standard.
I.e. like you, I agree that it's wrong to compare the actions of police to the actions of criminals. everyone should hold the actions of police on their own, an ask is this what the good guy would do?
[flagged]
It might also work to require visible badge numbers, but then cops in a situation just put tape over them, without consequences.
I don't see how this will be enforceable.
I do. ICE agents show up hiding their face, Local or State cops put them in handcuffs for breaking the law.
Federal agents then do same for state authorities for obstructing justice.
Hence why this will be decided by the Supreme Court, as it's fundamentally a question of state vs federal power and the limits of each.
Yeah, call me overly cynical but I'm waiting for this cycle to play out:
- CA bans face-masks for law-enforcement
- White House issues executive order requiring face-mask use for all federal law enforcement
- Both are placed on hold pending litigation, allowing the status quo (face-masks) to continue
- Litigation eventually winds up at the Supreme Court
- Supreme Court once again confirms White House can do whatever the hell it wants, Constitution be damned.
I really hate this timeline. Like, a lot.
The en vogue 'Supreme Court always sides with the Administration' is a lazy and inaccurate take. (That's usually used to justify 'And that's why I don't need to spend time looking into the actual details and just give up')
If people actually took the time to read the opinions [0], they'd realize...
1. Many of the 'allow the administration to continue' rulings are overriding stays, rather than actual decisions. Those cases are still pending in the courts and will eventually end up back at the Supreme Court.
2. Of the actual Supreme Court decisions, the news typically gives the most dumbed-down, hot take version.
3. Even to people without a legal background, much of the decision or dissent is written in plain English, attempts to lay out the rationale, and can be read by anyone with a secondary education.
[0] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/24
I would hazard a guess of which group says "I'm not paid enough for this" first - with the billions of funding just given to ICE.
The FBI? Led by Kash “I put on Visine with a mop” Patel?
lol. Good luck with that
Do ICE agents have super powers or something?
Yeah, they're cops. Cops aren't going to arrest other cops. Their superpower is being the people who are supposed to enforce the law, if they decide to break it who is going to stop them?
Uncle Sam has the biggest military on Earth. State troopers wouldn’t last longer than the time to deploy.
> Uncle Sam has the biggest military on Earth. State troopers wouldn’t last longer than the time to deploy
This is civil war. In a civil war there is no Uncle Sam. Just human beings from different states and of different political persuasions who need to decide what they do with their firepower, and whose orders they obey.
And how did that work out last time for the “misbehaving” states?
Currently only the widely unpopular executive branch of federal government is misbehaving.
That's not true at all. Congress could remove Trump in a week if they weren't complicit. SCOTUS could put a stop to much of the stuff he's doing if they weren't complicit.
Congress and the judiciary are misbehaving as well, otherwise either one could easily put a stop to the destructionists. In fact one might say the manic demented guy barking orders at the rest of the executive is just a deliberate attention-drawing point of a much wider conspiracy.
Americans always talk about how they have the second amendment to stand up to tyrannical government.
Meanwhile tank man had a shopping bag.
While a powerful image in the west, tank man did not effect change.
The video is much cooler than the photo.
That military continually gets kicked out when its legal right to be there is called into question.
I don’t believe they’d leave with their own in jeopardy. However, we’re deep into uncharted territory here so hard to say definitively how it would all go down.
If "Uncle Sam" deploys the military, that's pretty much it for the USA.
They already have - the national guard.
The National Guard and Active Duty are very different, legally speaking.
https://www.csg.org/2024/09/25/military-101-orders/
What section of US law they're activated/deployed under determines whether or not they can legally be used in an internal law enforcement capacity.
And generally speaking, federalized forces (either active or NG) cannot ever be used as law enforcement.
Hence why, despite the posturing and marketing of 'sending the military in', this administration is specifically using federalized military forces only in non-law enforcement capacities (and then encouraging the freed up state/local law enforcement to focus on law enforcement).
The national guard was illegally deployed over a fake emergency, but AFAIK the troops themselves did not perform any additional constitutional violations.
I'm talking about the real military. The one explicitly prohibited in the constitution for be used for policing Americans.
Picking up trash in dc.
I'd say it's high time for state governors to start deploying their National Guards to keep order. The federal gangs are deliberately stirring up chaos to create new pretexts for the assertion of federal control. In addition to the obvious problem of the masked kidnap gangs undermining public trust and order, there have been many reports of groups of vehicles with federal plates forming moving blockades on highways, assaulting motorists, etc - seemingly whatever they can do to try and create confrontational situations. A straightforward guess is that these aren't even yesterday's officers with a nominal desire to uphold the law and go home at the end of the day, but rather loser militia types that have been quickly deputized to go into "blue states" and create problems for their perceived enemies.
Deploying Guards would also be a good way to start building some institutional momentum for defending our country - preempting following illegal orders (like what happened in CA), sussing out traitors in the chain of command, and mitigating the dynamic where much of traditional state law enforcement is sympathetic to the destructionists.
Friend, it doesn't take superpowers. It just takes being on the same team.
No, but federal law trumps state
There is no federal law here.
How would they possibly enforce this?
Don't Feds have immunity to almost everything?
But doesn't claiming that immunity require them to identify themselves as such? In which case identification to claim immunity to the law also happens to involve complying with the law.
California has a long track record of passing laws that don’t really do anything.
If by that, you mean that the law won't be obeyed by Trump's little secret police force, you're probably right.
I think the law is to start a fight with the Federal government. All they need to do is arrest 1 of them and then it's on.
Will it do anything? I dunno, but I'm tired of watching Dems do nothing.
I'm surprised this needed to be a law. Or wasn't already one?
Or maybe I'm just surprised that a group of law enforcement officers would decide, "Hey, we don't want people to know who we are," and decide to wear masks.
"…I think this is what the state of California is trying to do. Establish limits as to how much the federal government can do within the jurisdiction of the state. It's an issue of state sovereignty."
More of the Cold Civil War playing out. (Also see coastal states forming health cooperatives (?) so that their citizens can get COVID vaccines, etc.)
> Or maybe I'm just surprised that a group of law enforcement officers would decide, "Hey, we don't want people to know who we are," and decide to wear masks.
It would be nice to be surprised. It _should_ be surprising. It's unfortunately not surprising at all.
Youth services has been hiding the names of their employees for more than a decade now. A few years back the final shoe dropped: now kids aren't even allowed to know the name of the judge that took them away from their home anymore.
They cite, of course, the same argument ICE makes: threats against them.
Is that legal? Well, their theory is that any kind of "family law" proceeding (including convicting minors of crimes, and locking them up without access to family or schooling for years) is considered civil law. Therefore none of the normal legal rights apply. I would think this is trivially a violation of the constitution, especially because it comes to imprisonment, but clearly it is not, since the justice department has no problems doing it. A child can be locked up for a crime (up to when they get 27 years old, yes, not 18, in some states), even if the present proof they didn't do it. The very, very, very basic legal right to not get convicted of a crime that you didn't do is openly violated by youth services. Right to have a trial? Nope. Right to having the state prove their case? Nope. Right to not get locked up without cause? No. Etc.
Needless to say, this was promptly exploited by some states who gave kickbacks to judges who "delivered" juveniles for private detention facilities. When caught doing this, the justice department promptly declared nobody had done anything wrong (except one of the judges who, in addition to having thousands of kids locked up for money, had lied on his taxes. He was never actually imprisoned, and finally pardoned by the president)
Oh and in case you don't know: locking minors away from school? Yes. Youth services does that. Parents aren't allowed to do that. Schools aren't allowed to do that. The police isn't allowed to do that (minor gets arrested, and wants to go to classes or do your homework? Police has to make it happen). Fucking death row isn't allowed to keep a minor out of school. But youth services IS allowed to do it.
So a secret police in the US? This is not new. What's new is that immigration enforcement started doing it on a large scale.
The US has used civil law to remove all kinds of rights. A person can make a plea deal (civil/contract law) that supersedes the government having to observe that persons constitutional rights and can erase all of their constitutional rights.
The government shouldn't be able to threaten you with 50 years in prison if you don't give up your rights. And they definitely shouldn't be able to tell a just that the agreement/plea wasn't coerced. But here we are.
>I'm surprised this needed to be a law. Or wasn't already one?
SWAT officers also wear masks when on mission, for their own protection, so why should ICE have to unmask by law?
I think you have it backwards: this applies to SWAT and is very unlikely to be respected by ICE.
Not any more.
[flagged]
Well, the governor of California represents 14% of the US economy, more than the smallest 25 other governors added together. Something about California works for free market capitalism and thats easier to cover than a big group of other states.
Is California 14% of the US economy BECAUSE of who is the governor of California TODAY?
https://www.ppic.org/publication/californias-economy/
Here is some data on California’s economy. You tell me how to interpret it.
Well, he’s chosen by the people of California. And those people have a per-capita GDP higher than the top four economies.
[flagged]
Quoting https://thenieveslawfirm.com/do-police-have-to-identify-them...:
You’re minding your own business when a police officer approaches you. They start asking questions, but something feels off. You ask for their name and badge number, but they refuse. What do you do?
As a citizen, you want to trust and cooperate with law enforcement, but you also have rights that must be protected. The question of whether police officers are legally required to identify themselves when asked is a complex one, with no easy answers.
In general, no, a police officer does not have to identify themselves even if you ask them—making it even more important to invoke your right to silence no matter who you think you’re talking to.
California Penal Code Section 830.10 states:
“Any uniformed peace officer shall wear a badge, nameplate, or other device which bears clearly on its face the identification number or name of the officer.”
However, there are a couple of key issues with this law that limit its effectiveness in ensuring police accountability:
> An officer could potentially wear their identifying information in a manner that is obscured or difficult to read.
Yeah... but they could also not wear a badge. I doubt that'll fly
> or other device which bears clearly on its face the identification number or name of the officer.
Any reasonable court would find that wearing a badge in a manner that obscured the number or name would not be "clearly wearing" said badge. Is the officer an ethical person who makes a good faith attempt to follow the law they're hired to uphold, and will the court be reasonable are both questions that don't change what the law clearly expects and requires.
What about when your next door neighbor is walking down your street when an unmarked van pulls up and a bunch of masked men in plain clothes grab her off the street and throw her in the van? (Which literally is what is happening)
Are worried when they are arresting you and are masked and without ID?
Hiding their identity completely undermines accountability.
It's also an extremely glaring public safety risk to normalize people who refuse to identify themselves using force and guns to grab and pull people off the street with nothing more than a "trust me, bro".
This country was founded on the concepts of checks and balances. And there are no checks "law enforcement".
[flagged]
How a I supposed to know that the masked person hauling off my neighbour is, in fact, actual law enforcement? How can I be sure they will ever even see that courtroom?
Did I just witness an arrest or a kidnapping? Who knows! And when the police become secret police, is there a difference?
Call the police and report? It's not like you know every LEO by face and only masks prevent you from identifying them.
Awesome now they know who I am, too.
This your first encounter with a chilling effect?
No, I've been observing hysterical redditors on this site since January.
Typically, you wouldn’t need to - they are supposed to have their names and ID’s on their badges.
And as long as you’re not actively interfering with something they are doing, yes you can and should be able to do exactly that.
Because you’re a member of the public, and you should be able to complain and if they are doing something bad, they should actually be held accountable to it.
Crazy eh?
ICE and the like know what they’re doing, and why.
[dead]
> Show me the law that says
Ignoring your obvious straw man about criminal allegation details, surely you are aware that the law and morally correct or societally important behavior patterns are not the same thing. Indeed, there's no law saying that the law need align with what's actually good for the electorate. Waving your hands at "the law" when discussing ethics, justice, fundamental rights, societal good, and the prevention of falling directly into a boots-on-necks martial state is a stupid game that leads nowhere. Laws change.
Sorry but this is bootlicker logic.
Yes you should.
They're just going say that they're federal and not bound by state law, aren't law enforcement they're immigration enforcement, or that they're undercover.
In theory, the actual individuals are still bound by state law, but the supremacy clause allows federal laws made in pursuance of the US Constitution to preempt those state laws. Of course, these laws still need to be "necessary and proper" for carrying out an express power like regulating immigration. A law that is unnecessary or improper would theoretically not hold up in court. The same goes for executive action.
Perhaps the most infamous case of this was the Idaho manslaughter case against FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi for killing Vicki Weaver in the Ruby Ridge incident. His case was simply "removed" to federal court and dismissed under the supremacy clause (although this dismissal was later overturned narrowly when appealed).
What ever happened to "States Rights!"?
Lincoln ended most of those.
> They're just going say that they're federal and not bound by state law
Sure. But hopefully they'll be saying that while one of their own is being charged.
the real rub comes when someone tries to restrict the movements of federal "agents" into or within the state.
The right to restrict those movements has already been upheld in court multiple times
i have a gut feeling that adverse court dispositions mean very little to the federal government anymore.
Federal agents are 100% bound by State laws. Unless there is a Federal law that overturns the state law, Federal agents absolutely have to obey.
Under previous administrations? Not entirely https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/map/LiabilityofaFederalOfficerun...
Under the current administration? Not at all https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/18/ice-nyc-protest-005...
[flagged]
I didn't, but if I would have down voted you it was because I'm not sure I believe you, and you didn't cite law, statue, or court decision confirming your claim. Or explain why you claim to believe that...
Both would be important parts of a useful comment. Perhaps the problem isn't disagreement, but your comment was just low effort that appears to come from anger and frustration?
[flagged]
Because your other toxic comments are getting flagged, I felt this one deserved a response.
> Show me the law that says my nosy neighbor should be allowed to walk over to my house and demand to know the names of the cops are who are talking to me, and force them to reveal what crime I am being accused of, what evidence they have, etc.
The US has constantly upheld the rights of the citizens to record the actions of police.
But it's also explicitly required by law in CA
The right to record: CA Penal Code 1. 15. 1.5 - Section 632.
> [right to privacy from being recorded] but excludes a communication made in a public gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive, or administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.
Uniform police are required to wear identification: CA Penal Code 2.3 4.5 - Peace Officers Section 830.10.
> 830.10. Any uniformed peace officer shall wear a badge, nameplate, or other device which bears clearly on its face the identification number or name of the officer.
In addition to that most police departments (maybe all of them) in CA have policies that officers need to identify clear themselves when asked. It's also interesting to watch some of the "audit the police" videos on youtube. The asshole cops never want to identify, but the good ones behaving like cops you'd want to interact with, are all eager to share their identity. There's one video I remember where a cop, who was being a shitbag, said "we don't have cards" when asked for one, and two other cops also there, the ones worthy of being cops, instantly corrected him and both gave their card to him. So quickly I'm sure it's department policy to do so. One of them giving the shitbag cop the stink eye for lying to him.
Good cops don't feel the need to hide who they are.
https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-pen/part-1/titl...
https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-pen/part-2/titl...
No one is talking about "recording". Of course you can record anyone in a public space. You're moving the goalposts.
Also lol @ "toxic". Sometimes I forget that people can be offended by insufficient outrage.
> No one is talking about "recording". Of course you can record anyone in a public space. You're moving the goalposts.
that's an unhelpful amount of pedantry, but sure you got me, you said walk over and demanded a bunch of information.... which you might notice, no one else said either. The discussion was about if identifying police was legal.
sigh
> Also lol @ "toxic". Sometimes I forget that people can be offended by insufficient outrage.
> In a famous example you might have heard of, the federal government can overrule states' laws legalizing slavery, and make it illegal nationwide.
This is a very demeaning way to phrase this, it's dripping with disgust and contempt. You may not have intended either, but without a doubt both are included by phrasing it this way.
Because both are divisive and obstacles to a fair and healthy conversation, that makes them toxic. As in harmful to others, or the discussion.
Is that a fair interpretation of your comment? IMO, Yes. But even if you elect to disagree, in a very heated thread a reasonable person knows to expect their messages will be read in the context of frustration which makes negative inferences much more likely. A good person who wants to be understood will take care to avoid that. But a toxic person will embed such language ignorantly or intentionally to stir up shit.
A lot of people probably would call insufficient outrage toxic; but that's not why I did. It doesn't have to be about insufficient outrage, when you elect to write things in a way that appears to imply contemt (instead of collaboration) for the people who you're trying to talk to, that's toxic.
No idea if you meant to or not, but that is the message you sent to everyone who down voted you. So really the question remains, are you trying to be dismissive and disrespectful to the people you're talking to? Or are you just bad at communicating with people who you disagree with?
https://xkcd.com/1984/
> I didn't feel the need to cite a fundamental tenet of US history.
That omission is why you got downvoted though.
I also don't think they can just ignore state law without an existing federal law allowing them to ignore it. Is there an existing federal law that says they can wear masks?
I don't think the administration will care if their acctions break state law when they already blatantly ignore the supreme cours and the constitution every day. I'm think they should be stopped, but i don't think this will be effective, we need to reflect deeply on why this is happening to create a coherent sound plan as how to stop and prevent it.
[flagged]
Because California understands (or at least some of us do) the catastrophic effect on public safety if the general population starts to feel like they can't trust the police.
Police using masks is so dehumanizing, and causes fear and confusion among most citizens, that it will cause the loss of trust and that can't be permitted because it's nearly impossible to restore trust once it's lost.
> Why is California going after the people enforcing the law instead of the ones breaking it?
oh, was this a bad faith question? did I get baited?
[flagged]
> Not from them protecting themselves from the threats from the public.
I think you unintentionally found a nugget of truth here. The police aren't hiding their identity from criminals, they're hiding their identity from the public. The whole public, non criminals included, have decided their behavior is unacceptable, and want them to be known and held to account for their actions.
I don't want police that feel they need to hide from the public they're sworn to protect. That feels like it's an unacceptable moral hazard to me.
[flagged]
> Then the public shouldn't be doxing and making death threats on the officers, their spouses, and their children. Nor should they be allowed to set fire to ICE buildings, throw rocks at officers and their vehicles.
It might surprise you, but I agree with you. But I'm not gonna suggest anyone should roll over and just take it, when they see something they consider to be abusive. And I don't know what other options the public has to hold individuals to account for their actions. Humanity, well a large portion of it, has already learned the lesson of why "I was just following orders" can't be tolerated. And how individuals need some motivation to decide if they're behaving in a way that the public will tolerate.
To steal an idea that I detest, but I do hear often from police, (the subject of this point) Publishing the identity of someone shouldn't be a threat to anyone who has nothing to hide. Why do the police have something to hide?
> This is where California should come in and cooperate with LEO to stop this behavior and be outspoken against it. Instead, they're feeding the fire.
What would you suggest as the behavior you'd like to see from CA to cooperate with LEO (I assume you mean ICE), and what behavior should stop? I hope it's not "roll over and let ICE do whatever they want." Because like I said, I can't advocate anyone just accept watching others get abused by a system they believe is unfair.
We have laws for all that behavior. I feel like the police are quite capable of going to the police.
[flagged]
Last night? Tonight?
I mean, people have anxiety about some things, but I don't. And I would gladly walk around any street in CA, you're welcome to join me for a walk in any area you choose?
Plenty of times? What on earth do you think it's like there lol
All officials of the state should be identifiable.
Right now anyone in a mask can kidnap anyone off the street and who can tell if they're a legitimate officer or not? I will not be surprised if this leads to tragic outcomes where either ICE officials are shot, or the person who is resisting with good cause.
Law enforcement has never needed to hide their identities before - and they should not.
[flagged]
If they had instead decided to make a numeric identifier visible then this would be a very different conversation. This would have met your requirement while still holding these people accountable for their actions.
But that's not what they did. They want complete anonymity so they can break the law in heinous ways.
If they were identifiable in some other way then your argument might hold water. But it doesn't. Masks are not to protect their identity.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Why do you need their identity though? What are you planning?
> Why do you need their identity though? What are you planning?
To hold them accountable when they break the law.
[dead]
Why do you want their identities hidden? What are you planning or hoping they're planning?