• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

California lawmakers want to ban cops from wearing face coverings.

Maidenrules29

Death to all but METAL!!
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 12, 2018
Messages
7,779
Reaction score
4,008
Location
Idaho
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
This is OK with me BUT......
1. Make doxxing a police officer a felony with a minimum 5 year sentence.
1. Protestors also cannot wear masks or face-coverings of any type.

California lawmakers introduce legislation to ban law enforcement from wearing face coverings - ABC News https://share.google/PYy2qeCKMh7WPg9Cu
 
That would only be a class D felony, I'd go with making it at least a class C Federal felony, 10-25 years, and a class A felony should violent action or harm result.
 
Individual said:
That would only be a class D felony, I'd go with making it at least a class C Federal felony, 10-25 years, and a class A felony should violent action or harm result.
Click to expand...
I like your style lol.
 
I'd suggest a few modifications:

1. I also am okay with cops being required not to wear masks but I would be comfortable with that only applying when they are executing an interaction e.g. pulling someone over, detaining someone, asking questions, knocking on doors. I don't care one whit whether they wear a mask or not while driving a route or just walking about, but if they are going to stop me, I have a right to determine whether they are actual officers or some rando playing cop.

2. Not sure I agree that doxing an officer should be a felony depending on what is meant by doxing; if an officer detains me in a public space, I have my right to record the interaction and even live-stream it, and if in the process the officer is required to identify themselves, that should not be considered doxing. If doxing = publishing sensitive information e.g. their home address, details of their family then I am completely okay with that being some sort of criminal offense.

3. Protestors should be able to wear masks or coverings of any type, but should expect that such coverings may be removed if the protestor is detained and charged (e.g. read their Miranda rights) for some documented offense.
 
1. Protestors also cannot wear masks or face-coverings of any type.
Click to expand...
but they will - then what?
 
I'd have no problem with all protestors being required to identify themselves before they are allowed to enter a protest site, with those oppose them also required to identify themselves and remain separated or be arrested and fined.
 
Individual said:
I'd have no problem with all protestors being required to identify themselves before they are allowed to enter a protest site, with those oppose them also required to identify themselves and remain separated or be arrested and fined.
Click to expand...
So you want a register of people holding certain opinions? That will make arresting them all easier I guess.
 
Individual said:
I'd have no problem with all protestors being required to identify themselves before they are allowed to enter a protest site, with those oppose them also required to identify themselves and remain separated or be arrested and fined.
Click to expand...
I see. So you're okay with the First Amendment, so long as people first register themselves before expressing themselves. Nice.

I imagine you feel the same way about the 2nd Amendment as well?
 

Well according to the article:

"State Sens. Scott Wiener and Jesse Arreguin -- Democratic lawmakers from San Francisco and Oakland, respectively -- announced Monday that they would be filing SB 627 to ban local, state, and federal law enforcement from covering their faces when interacting with the public." They also want them to wear nametags.

They can certainly make laws that apply to State and Local law enforcement, but I am not sure that they can pass laws like this that apply to Federal law enforcement.

However, is there a law in California prohibiting RIOTERS from wearing face coverings? How about requiring nametags? I don't believe so, yet these two nitwits want law enforcement personnel to be targets of doxxing, placing both themselves and perhaps their families at-risk? That's exactly what has led to State and Federal personnel, including National Guard units in support to wearing said masks. Threats being made against them and their families for doing their sworn duties.

Under NORMAL circumstances police and security forces typically do wear their nametags or other ID. But that's when dealing with normal criminal and law enforcement efforts. However in todays "instant information" age where a cellphone can snap a pic of a person and nametag, do a search on the WWW and find out who they are, where they live, family connections, etc. Then use the info to effect harms.
 
Last edited:
joluoto said:
You know how any such register would be used.
Click to expand...
It could be very useful to law enforcement to weed out individuals known to incite violence.
 
Individual said:
It could be very useful to law enforcement to weed out individuals known to incite violence.
Click to expand...
It would be a register of "enemies of State", and would be used for all kind of things such as pressuring employers to fire those participating in protests, putting the names on no- fly lists, or denying the people on that list trhe right to enlist in the army, or study at universities. There is a reason you don't want an opinion register ever.
 
phoenix2020 said:
I see. So you're okay with the First Amendment, so long as people first register themselves before expressing themselves. Nice.

I imagine you feel the same way about the 2nd Amendment as well?
Click to expand...
Personally, I have no problem with protests but feel they should only be allowed at designated locations where they have no effect on business or vehicles/pedestrians. Do protests unite or more deeply divide people?
 
Individual said:
Personally, I have no problem with protests but feel they should only be allowed at designated locations where they have no effect on business or vehicles/pedestrians. Do protests unite or more deeply divide people?
Click to expand...
A protest that doesn't annoy people is a protest no one will see. Protests are supposed to annoy people. They are supposed to draw attention. If you box a protest in it will be something that can and will be ignored, and that defeats the whole idea of protests.
 
Then select areas where they can be seen but do no harm. I have no problem with drawing attention, but more often than not a negative response is the result of annoying people.
 
Individual said:
Then select areas where they can be seen but do no harm. I have no problem with drawing attention, but more often than not a negative response is the result of annoying people.
Click to expand...
Annoying people is the point of a protest. A protest is not a peaceful thing, it's a an eruption from anger towards a specific situation or policy. A protest's function is to make people uneasy, annoyed and irritated, especially those the protest targets, whether it's the government or some other organization.
 
Maidenrules29 said:
This is OK with me BUT......
1. Make doxxing a police officer a felony with a minimum 5 year sentence.
1. Protestors also cannot wear masks or face-coverings of any type.
Click to expand...
I think number two will solve the problem completely it is all be over. Go back to a peaceful protest because now everybody's faces visible and there's cameras everywhere. Which shouldn't be a problem for a protest and some people may disagree with your views but you're not doing anything wrong.

Number one would have to be a federal felony Trident federal court.
Maidenrules29 said:
California lawmakers introduce legislation to ban law enforcement from wearing face coverings - ABC News https://share.google/PYy2qeCKMh7WPg9Cu
Click to expand...
 
It's performance theater. It's directed at ICE agents who wear masks, but California cannot criminalize the actions of federal law enforcement officer in the performance of their official duties. If this was a thing, they could criminalize apprehending aliens entirely. They can't do that, and they can't do this.
 
There's no right to privacy in a public space. Cops out there doing cop things must be as accountable as anyone if not more so. No masks.
 
So you're confirming the intent to stir conflict, not to resolve issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…