• dinren@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    2 days ago

    Yeah it’s never gonna pass. Vague laws don’t work and even then, it would be argued up to the Supreme Conservative Court, and passed anyway.

    There’s no point in anything but 86 86 86.

    • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      It’s actually not that vague looking into it. They have to be readily identifiable. They can totally wear masks as long as their identifiable as police and not trying to disguise themselves. So things like SWAT and riot equipment already identify them as police.

      It has an exemption for undercover officers, which already have existing requirements and paperwork associated for oversight. There is zero reason for any other officer to not be identifiable.

      It requires intent to disguise, so effectively this just outlaws plainclothes officers, which should already not be allowed honestly. Too easy for them to escalate a conflict from within to then justify an escalated police response. Protesters aren’t violent enough? Send Jeff and Bobby inside in plain clothes to start some shit.

        • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          It would be illegal for the govt to do so I guess. Why would it be legal for the org to do it if it’s specifically prohibited for individual officers?

          The law should bind everyone, including the government.

          • dinren@discuss.online
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            Nothing is illegal when the government does it—anymore.

            But yes, it should bind everyone.

    • ExtantHuman@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Everything sounds vague if you only read the headline about it, and not the actual law

      • dinren@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        SB 627 will exempt SWAT teams, as well as medical grade masks (surgical or N95, pursuant to a departmental health policy) and masks designed to protect against exposure to smoke during a state of emergency related to wildfires.

        Vague. ICE is now defined as SWAT. They get oversized surgical masks. Or they just wear a mask “in case of forest fire”

        These people aren’t obeying laws as it is, what makes you think another law will make them?

    • Cruxifux@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      2 days ago

      And it would have to be enforced which it won’t. Democrat do nothing while pretending to do something shit again.

      • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        2 days ago

        It would be a state law. Dems in CA are much more likely to make sure it gets enforced compared to the federal level.

        • dinren@discuss.online
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          But any convictions would be appealed upwards and just kicked out. Making the law pointless.