this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2025
1127 points (99.8% liked)

News

30525 readers
2760 users here now

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.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TachyonTele@piefed.social 176 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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.

[–] GeraldOfHillwood@lemmy.world 41 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Doesn't matter if it passes. The president doesn't abide by the law, so they don't need to either.

[–] entwine413@lemm.ee 38 points 1 week ago

Plus, who is going to enforce it, cops? Lol

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] whostosay@lemmy.world 25 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Empricorn@feddit.nl 138 points 1 week ago (2 children)

"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.

[–] entwine413@lemm.ee 26 points 1 week ago

It's totally reasonable, but it'll probably also get you deported to El Salvador. Or at the very least beat.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] garretble@lemmy.world 105 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

This should also include identification on vehicles.

None of this unmarked pickup truck or white van bullshit.

[–] Brunbrun6766@lemmy.world 48 points 1 week ago (3 children)

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.

[–] whostosay@lemmy.world 24 points 1 week ago

Oh you mean pre-crime, we absolutely need to violate your rights to prevent pre-crime.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] makyo@lemmy.world 66 points 1 week ago (7 children)

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

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] foggy@lemmy.world 65 points 1 week ago (3 children)

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 29 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] this@sh.itjust.works 34 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

In theory, anyone could forge a badge, claim to be ice, and literally kidnap people into sex trafficking or slavery and we wouldnt find out for quite a long time. That's in addition to the already dangerous prospect of having unidentifiable police who are unaccountable.

There should be passed ASAP. Should become a national law too but not gonna happen with this government. We need to pass this on a local and state level as much as possible.

[–] j0ester@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Isn’t this already happening?

[–] Buske@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago

mmmm People whom are know to hang out on an island full of under age sex trafficed girls, are now in power of the government. Oh of course it is happening, But its no longer limited to the island, and its government approved.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Phoenicianpirate@lemm.ee 12 points 1 week ago

Also many people may not necessarily know how a real ICE badge looks like. And fake badges are available for collectors and cosplayers alike. Also most people will not fully check or examine a badge or insignia, meaning by the time they realize it is fake it will be too late.

[–] arin@lemmy.world 31 points 1 week ago (3 children)

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

[–] Jack_Burton@lemmy.ca 20 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 29 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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..."

[–] parody@lemmings.world 9 points 1 week ago

Stop hogging the time machine, give someone else a chance to document inevitable future

[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 7 points 1 week ago

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.

[–] PattyMcB@lemmy.world 28 points 1 week ago

Good... personal freedom and all that

[–] Alenalda@lemmy.world 23 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

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.

Where I live cops wear strips on their vest with their station, and name badges with their officer number and name.

[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 21 points 1 week ago (5 children)

How would they enforce this, if they can’t identify the people violating it?

[–] resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world 34 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Stop anyone with a mask attempting to do ICE stuff.

[–] snausagesinablanket@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Unarmed citizens, apparently, have the guts. Do law enforcement?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Revan343@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 week ago

Rifles in hand, ideally

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] SabinStargem@lemmy.today 19 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Badges should come with a QR code, linked to a government database, profiling official officers. Warrants should also get a QR code, with a justice's signature, reasoning, and a short list of what activities are permitted by the warrant. The judicial branch controls their own database for the warrants and justices, while the state or federal governments have their own databases for their respective officers.

Also, should these conceptual reforms happen, people should be able to immediately send a copy of the presented warrant and badges to their lawyers and agencies via a QR snapshot.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] thedruid@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago

Good. Let the cowards face their victims

[–] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I always see these news of proposals. Wake me up when these proposals are have actually been legislated.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] AmazingAwesomator@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago (4 children)

there are exceptions and there is "encouragement" to wear identification. this will do nothing.

[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Witchfire@lemmy.world 21 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] PumpkinSkink@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Why not just... uhhh. Ban ICE.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I don't understand how it's even legal right now.

Why would they need exceptions?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Chocrates@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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

[–] Bahnd@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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...

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›