In response to immigration raids by masked federal officers in Los Angeles and across the nation, two California lawmakers on Monday proposed a new state law to ban members of law enforcement from concealing their faces while on the job.

The bill would make it a misdemeanor for local, state and federal law enforcement officers to cover their faces with some exceptions, and also encourage them to wear a form of identification on their uniform.

“We’re really at risk of having, effectively, secret police in this country,” said state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), co-author of the bill.

  • garretble@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    edit-2
    16 days ago

    This should also include identification on vehicles.

    None of this unmarked pickup truck or white van bullshit.

    • BigFig@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      16 days ago

      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.

      • Phoenicianpirate@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        16 days ago

        I honestly wouldn’t know. I live in Canada and police vehicles here are incredibly obvious and marked. Some unmarked vehicles do exist, but they are for detectives and people going after more serious crimes and dont care about parking tickets and jaywalkers.

  • foggy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    16 days ago

    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.

    • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      16 days ago

      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.

      • ZoopZeZoop@lemmy.world
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        16 days ago

        I agree, but there’s a difference between oversight and law enforcement there. If I am telling someone they need to justify restrictions in a behavior plan, that’s different than something for which someone else may be arrested. In the former example, I think they should be able to wear an N95 for health reasons.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      16 days ago

      You should not be under any obligation to assume or respect any proposed authority by a person unwilling to show you their face.

      Explaining this to the guy with a badge and a mask shoving a gun in my face.

      He’s screaming and cocking the weapon, while a few of his friends approach me with tasers and clubs, but I’m just going to stand here waving a copy of John Locke’s Social Contract while explaining that I am a Free Man On The Land and do not make joinder.

  • Kühlschrank@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    16 days ago

    Encourage them to wear identification? ENCOURAGE them?!? How that is not and has not always been mandatory is beyond me.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      16 days ago

      It’s a state legislature attempting to regulate a federal agency. Even if it manages to make it to the Governor’s desk, you know Newsom will veto it, because he’s a cowardly little toad man who has never found a boat he was above licking. And if, by some miracle it survives the legislature and Newsom discovers his spine, the federal courts will bat this away overnight.

      All that is assuming Silicon Valley doesn’t have enough votes in the state house to smoother this proposal in committee.

      Why even worry about the language of a DOA bill? You’re not stopping ICE from Sacramento. Not with the current crop of liberal dorks and techbro shills running things.

      • Artyom@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        15 days ago

        I mean, the president did threaten him, so maybe he’ll grow a spine for his own safety.

  • arin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    16 days ago

    Wearing masks isn’t the issue, it’s the lack of warrants and identification.

    • ReluctantMuskrat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      16 days ago

      A face can be seen, recognized and recorded from a distance. Video doesn’t usually do any good with badges and other identification but cops and criminals both - or one and the same - risk being identified if they don’t have masks.

      • arin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        16 days ago

        Sets a precedent against masking in general. As someone who still wants to avoid public infectious diseases like covid, flu, birdflu, and now measles, it makes us look like we’re trying to hide while we are just trying to protect ourselves with PPE.

  • NateNate60@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    16 days ago

    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…”

  • Alenalda@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    16 days ago

    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.

  • pjwestin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    15 days ago

    It has a carve-out for medical masks, so get ready for ICE to abuse the shit out of that if it passes.

    • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      16 days ago

      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.

    • kreskin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      16 days ago

      Has anyone even said “thank you” to democratic leaders? pretending to do something while accomplishing nothing meaningful at all takes a lot of work and skill.

  • Chris@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    16 days ago

    I dunno why he had to go with a Star wars reference. Nazi brownshirts were literally called stormtroopers. Seems a more apt comparison.

    • Bahnd Rollard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      16 days ago

      Because people dont read history text books… They know star wars, they dont know details about what happened in Germany in the late 1930s, if they did, we would not be in this situation…