3 ms·

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

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.)

BugsJustFindMe 1y ago
> 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.
- spwa4 1y ago
  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.
  - _DeadFred_ 1y ago
    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.
tjwebbnorfolk 1y ago
[flagged]
- lazide 1y ago
  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.
  - tjwebbnorfolk 1y ago
    [dead]
    - BugsJustFindMe 1y ago
      > 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.
- BugsJustFindMe 1y ago
  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".
  - tjwebbnorfolk 1y ago
    [flagged]
FirmwareBurner 1y ago
>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?
- tjwebbnorfolk 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - sigwinch 1y ago
    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.
    - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
      Is California 14% of the US economy BECAUSE of who is the governor of California TODAY?
      - LeafItAlone 1y ago
        https://www.ppic.org/publication/californias-economy/ https://www.ppic.org/publication/californias-economy/ Here is some data on California’s economy. You tell me how to interpret it.
      - sigwinch 1y ago
        Well, he’s chosen by the people of California. And those people have a per-capita GDP higher than the top four economies.
- sigwinch 1y ago
  I think you have it backwards: this applies to SWAT and is very unlikely to be respected by ICE.
- 1y ago

BugsJustFindMe 1y ago

> 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.

spwa4 1y ago
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.
- _DeadFred_ 1y ago
  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.

tjwebbnorfolk 1y ago

[flagged]

lazide 1y ago
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.
- tjwebbnorfolk 1y ago
  [dead]
  - BugsJustFindMe 1y ago
    > 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.
BugsJustFindMe 1y ago
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".
- tjwebbnorfolk 1y ago
  [flagged]

FirmwareBurner 1y ago

>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?

tjwebbnorfolk 1y ago
[flagged]
- sigwinch 1y ago
  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.
  - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
    Is California 14% of the US economy BECAUSE of who is the governor of California TODAY?
    - LeafItAlone 1y ago
      https://www.ppic.org/publication/californias-economy/ https://www.ppic.org/publication/californias-economy/ Here is some data on California’s economy. You tell me how to interpret it.
    - sigwinch 1y ago
      Well, he’s chosen by the people of California. And those people have a per-capita GDP higher than the top four economies.
sigwinch 1y ago
I think you have it backwards: this applies to SWAT and is very unlikely to be respected by ICE.
1y ago