New York finally does something right!!!

[ElChupacabra]

I'm pretty sure this law does not restrict N95 or similar medical masks. This law seems to target baclavas and other types of full face coverings favored by criminals and others who are trying to hide their identity.

So will police be stopping people wearing balaclavas in the winter? I used them all the time when I ride my bike in the winter. So let's take a look at the law:




Where this gets really tricky is how it justifies police to stop someone just because they're wearing a face covering, since there are many reasons for it. It makes more sense for it to be an added charge when committing a crime since then the intent is much easier to narrow down. I can walk down the street with an N95 mask and a baseball cap and be thought of as someone intending to conceal their identity.

 

[ElChupacabra]

The weird part is, certain face masks can simultaneously aid public health by partially blocking the natural human ability to sneeze or expectorate, and arguably reduce public safety by preventing a portion of a person's face from being seen.

Does this law apply to religious face coverings?

Edit: Actually that's not weird at all, it's just a bit of conflicting purposes.

The hard part is determining the intent, since masks and other face coverings serve different purposes but conceal identity regardless.

 

[noonereal]

I'm thinking either Antifa will steer clear of Long Island or Long Island will make an exception to their law for Antifa.

Your post, per usual, is pure bullshit.
Just racist disgusting Trump crap.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

This law is not about what is deemed a medical mask. It is the likes of a ski mask.

Still lacking intent to be criminal. It’s ’thought policing’. We don’t do that in this country. At least we ought not.

 

[lwf]

We could lump in wearing the balaclavas with "possession of burglary tools". Same principle. You are about to use an object to help commit a crime.

That's not how "possession of burglary tools" laws work. It isn't illegal to possess "burglary tools." In order to be charged with "possession of burglary tools," police have to prove that you intended to use them for burglary purposes. If I'm wearing a balaclava and carrying bolt cutters and lockpicks and a crowbar and creeping around a residential neighborhood at night, you can stop and question me, and if under questioning I admit I was looking to break into a home, or you have other reasonable evidence to prove I had this intent, then you can charge me with "possession of burglary tools." Go ahead and throw the balaclava in there if you want.

However, if I am only carrying bolt cutters home from the hardware store in the middle of the day, then leave me the **** alone. Unless you can prove that I intend to use those bolt cutters for burglary purposes, then it is completely legal for me to be in possession of them. Similarly, if I am only wearing a balaclava on the subway, then leave me the **** alone. Unless you can prove that I'm wearing the balaclava in order to hide my identity while I commit a specific crime, then you have no standing to tell me to take it off. Don't try to outlaw balaclavas because they might be used in a crime. You might as well outlaw firearms because they might be used in a crime. The same draconian logic applies.

 

[Maidenrules29]

This is ****in sick.

Disgusting. Totally Disgusting.

Yep. Wearing a full face mask and carrying a huge knife around is disgusting. He was more than likely prevented from killing someone..

 

[Pyrite]

It definitely does. I actually edited that in before I saw your response. The section above the second quote became:

​

That said, the idea of government saying "we associate this dress choice with crime" would be a horrible basis for a dress code law. Open that door and I can guess which other laws might follow. ​

​

That also said, there's been a bunch of these laws lately and I'm curious to see how the Federalist Society Court of the United States responds. It's been a long time since I did a proper deep dive, but from what I recall 1st Amd jurisprudence is a morass, not something to state strong opinions about off the bat.​

​

​

It's just that it's been long enough since I delved into 1st Amd stuff that I'm not comfortable saying anything with certainty off the cuff here.

Teen arrested in first violation of New York county's controversial mask ban

Wesslin Omar Ramirez Castillo, 18, was arrested Sunday after Nassau County police responded to reports of a "suspicious male" wearing a mask. He was found to be carrying a 14-inch knife.

www.nbcnews.com

...Scott Banks, the Attorney in Chief for Legal Aid Society of Nassau County, declined to comment on the specifics of the case Wednesday, but said, “it appears unlikely the police had a constitutional basis to stop and detain Mr. Castillo for wearing a face mask under long-standing New York law and the State Constitution.”

He said there's “no basis to believe that the alleged wearing of a face mask, as alleged in this case, was intended to conceal identity or purported criminal behavior which the Nassau law is intended to deter,” and if simply wearing the mask was the basis of the stop, “there certainly a strong reason to conclude it was was unlawful under New York law.”...

Critics say the ban poses a risk for those who want to peacefully protest while concealing their identities.

The ban has also since been challenged in federal court in a lawsuit that claims the law violates the Americans with Disabilities Act and needlessly opens health compromised individuals for ridicule.

 

[noonereal]

Yep. Wearing a full face mask and carrying a huge knife around is disgusting. He was more than likely prevented from killing someone..

Really? But open carry is cool.
Wtf are you thinning?

You can't ban masks, you should be promoting them. Stupid Americans don't wear masks. They spread disease.
Better?

 

[Maidenrules29]

Don't outlaw balaclavas because they might be used in a crime.

Thousands of violent criminals roam free because the police could never identify them due to them wearing full face coverings.

 

[Pyrite]

Thousands of violent criminals roam free because the police could never identify them due to them wearing full face coverings.

For that reason, you believe the rest of us - hundreds of millions - should be prohibited from wearing masks/face coverings.

Right?

 

[ElChupacabra]

Yep. Wearing a full face mask and carrying a huge knife around is disgusting. He was more than likely prevented from killing someone..

...or not. Right now we don't know what his intention was. The broader question though, is wearing any kind of face covering warrant getting stopped and searched because it has more implications for some groups of people than others.

 

[lwf]

Thousands of violent criminals roam free because the police could never identify them due to them wearing full face coverings.

Thousands of violent criminals roam free because American citizens have the right to trial by jury as well. What do you think should be done about this?

I'd rather have my freedom and have to keep a watch out for those thousands of criminals roaming around my country than lose my freedom and live in my country in perfect safety.

 

[Maidenrules29]

Really? But open carry is cool

No, it's not. I'm not pro open carry at all.

The knife that kid was carrying was illegal, and I doubt it wasn't concealed.

Masking to prevent disease? Still up in the air AFAIC..

 

[Maidenrules29]

it has more implications for some groups of people than others.

What groups exactly? Which groups are more prone to wear balaclavas and why?

 

[noonereal]

No, it's not. I'm not pro open carry at all.

The knife that kid was carrying was illegal, and I doubt it wasn't concealed.

Masking to prevent disease? Still up in the air AFAIC..

What is AFAIC?

As to masking it can work.
Here is how that goes.
If you have Covid not wearing a mask and i am wearing a mask, i am only 20 protected.
If you have Covid and wear a mask and i do not wear a mask i am 50% protected.
If you have Covid and we both have masks, i am 70% protected.
Masks protect others better than they protect ourselves.

 

[The Mark]

Thousands of violent criminals roam free because the police could never identify them due to them wearing full face coverings.

What about when it's cold and you need to keep your face warm?

 

[Helix]

Clearly unconstitutional. What is the governments interest in stopping people from wearing masks?

Here's the shocking part...the arrested person was a person of color.

It makes one wonder why this thread was posted.

 

[ElChupacabra]

What groups exactly? Which groups are more prone to wear balaclavas and why?

The groups I'm referring to are minorities who are already targeted just because of who they are. As for balaclavas, all sorts of people wear them but the question is whether minorities wearing them will be more of a target than others. The core issue here though, is officers not knowing the intent of someone wearing a face covering.

 

[Maidenrules29]

It makes one wonder why this thread was posted.

Your bias is showing, not mine. I would have posted just the same if it had been a masked patriot front member who was arrested.

 

[Maidenrules29]

What is AFAIC?

As far as I'm concerned.

 

[brianpatrick]

All those ajummas out on their morning walks are going to be disappointed. This law will be overturned. Masks aren’t just for covid, or virtue signaling.

 

[Maidenrules29]

What about when it's cold and you need to keep your face warm?

Seeing as how this law will probably go away soon, I guess some people will keep wearing ski masks to stay warm, and others will wear them to keep from being identified while committing crimes.

 

[brianpatrick]

Yep. Wearing a full face mask and carrying a huge knife around is disgusting. He was more than likely prevented from killing someone..

Or being ready to defend himself against muggers and murderers. By this logic we could arrest people carrying guns because “they must be on their way to shoot somebody.” He could have been wearing a mask for lots of reasons. In America it’s not a crime to not want to be identified.

 

[Mr Person]

Acknowledged you aren’t defending the new law.

It may very well do that, and no doubt it makes our jobs tougher but that is what we get paid for.

I’m NOT in favor of making us less free to be safer. I’m dine with the quote attributed to Franklin (although that is probably wrong) on that: ”They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. “

But surely you agree there are limits somewhere. Like laws against driving drunk and/or ****ed up on drugs. That impinges the freedom of people who like to get ****ed up, and it makes all of us safer.

I wouldn't get rid of something that stark, for example.

Laws against driving drunk aren’t similar. A crime is already in progress. Reasonable man standard. Known or should have known. So intent *is* present.

Example: Someone is overheard planning a bank robbery. They get guns, they get masks. They are arrested outside of the bank. It’s attempted bank robbery. Charge them. You can prove intent and acts toward completion of the crime.

Someone does nothing more than put a mask on, it’s an attempt at thought policing. How do you know what they had in mind? It’s nothing more than ‘dress up’ at that point. We don’t arrest people in this country for their thoughts.

Huh?

First off, DUI is a general intent crime. They don't need to prove any kind of plan to drive drunk. Just that you drove drunk. And there are narrow defenses. IF you can't knock out the sobriety test or breathalyzer, you'd have to show either that you were dosed without your knowledge or that perhaps you're one of the rare people whose body produces alcohol if they eat certain carbs.

Second, whether or not a crime in progress is not what is at issue. I don't understand where you're going with it .All criminal laws say "if you do this, you will be punished by X". And they all end up being enforced after the government discovers it has been done regardless of whether you're caught in the middle of doing it or caught later. And in a pretty basic sense, they all restrict the freedom of people to do whatever they please in the greater aim of safety, whether it's "do not steal", "do not murder", or "do not refuse to wear a seatbelt."

DUI laws seem like a good example. Tons of people drive intoxicated. Only a fraction get in accidents that hurt hem or someone else. Given the studied effects of alcohol, the greater intoxication the more likely an accident. So we restrict you from doing the same in the name of safety.



The issue here isn't that there's some fundamental problem with restricting freedom in the name of safety. The issue is that the connection between wearing a mask and committing crimes is attenuated. Unlike getting behind the wheel with a 0.2 BAC, putting on a mask itself doesn't directly endanger anyone. The law is just based on this loose perceived correlation between wearers of masks and certain crimes. Which is stupid and on the wrong side of the line.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

Huh?

First off, DUI is a general intent crime. They don't need to prove any kind of plan to drive drunk. Just that you drove drunk. And there are narrow defenses. IF you can't knock out the sobriety test or breathalyzer, you'd have to show either that you were dosed without your knowledge or that perhaps you're one of the rare people whose body produces alcohol if they eat certain carbs.

Second, whether or not a crime in progress is not what is at issue. I don't understand where you're going with it .All criminal laws say "if you do this, you will be punished by X". And they all end up being enforced after the government discovers it has been done regardless of whether you're caught in the middle of doing it or caught later. And in a pretty basic sense, they all restrict the freedom of people to do whatever they please in the greater aim of safety, whether it's "do not steal", "do not murder", or "do not refuse to wear a seatbelt."

DUI laws seem like a good example. Tons of people drive intoxicated. Only a fraction get in accidents that hurt hem or someone else. Given the studied effects of alcohol, the greater intoxication the more likely an accident. So we restrict you from doing the same in the name of safety.



The issue here isn't that there's some fundamental problem with restricting freedom in the name of safety. The issue is that the connection between wearing a mask and committing crimes is attenuated. Unlike getting behind the wheel with a 0.2 BAC, putting on a mask itself doesn't directly endanger anyone. The law is just based on this loose perceived correlation between wearers of masks and certain crimes. Which is stupid and on the wrong side of the line.

You aren't understanding what I am getting at. It is a matter of law. There are specific intent crimes and reasonable man standard crimes.

Drunk driving is a reasonable man standard crime. What that means is you do not have to have specific intent to do harm. It is sufficient that a reasonable man would or should have known that to get behind the wheel of a vehicle and drive while intoxicated produces a reasonable estimation that harm is possible. Therefore the act of driving while intoxicated all by itself can be the crime. Nothing else needs to happen. It is a crime because of what the act itself places society at risk, without having to prove I intended to put society at risk.

Specific intent crimes require state of mind of wanting/deciding to do harm. You have to prove that state called "mens rea" to convict the person of the crime. The lacking of state of mind can be a reasonable doubt to fail to convict for such a crime.

Simply wearing a mask is not "mens rea" that indicates any other criminal act is the point of wearing the mask. So it is absolutely bogus to say the law is to prevent other crimes of being committed. One has NO IDEA any other cirme is going to be committed. So you would have to make it the law simply not to wear a mask, and how can that be Constitutional. If I can't keep someone from wearing a swastika just to wear a swastika [First Amendment] how can I prevent them from wearing a mask just to wear a mask? You have to prove a state of mind that the intent was to commit a crime while wearing that mask, that the wearing of the mask alone can not prove.

No way this holds up to Constitutional review.