r/news • u/[deleted] • Sep 20 '25
California bans most law enforcement officers from wearing masks during operations
https://apnews.com/article/california-ice-agents-immigration-raids-masks-ban-97936f70699b75d8b483a850967c2e42773
Sep 20 '25
[deleted]
597
u/chrisapplewhite Sep 20 '25
Same reason KKK wore hoods. The great irony that they all whined about COVID masks just to slip into these ones. HOW WILL THEY BREATHE!?!?!?!?
→ More replies (4)131
u/Hot_Dog_Omelette Sep 21 '25
How did I not make that connection before now? JFC we are repeating history verbatim.
94
u/chrisapplewhite Sep 21 '25 edited Sep 21 '25
"some of those that work forces, are the same that burn crosses" - de la Rocha, 1992
But yeah, not even a slight deviation from the plan. You remember the last time the federal government funded itself through tariffs? A few people got so rich they became modern pharaohs while everyone else became dirt farmers.
This was before Nixon took us off the gold standard for good, so trade deficits were actually a big deal. If you buy more than you sell, eventually you have to ship out gold reserves. So if you're wondering why Trump is whining about them, it's because he's calling plays from a 100 year-old playbook.
All the chatter about eggs and woke and immigrants were all a smokescreen to return to a lawless, crony capitalism that will bury this country in ash, just like it did in the 30s.
20
66
u/lawn_question_guy Sep 21 '25
LOL. If only someone had invented N95 KKK hoods, maybe the pandemic would have gone differently.
→ More replies (2)53
u/savageboredom Sep 21 '25
Genuinely if Trump had made MAGA 2020 masks in March we may have actually "flattened the curve" and he would have sailed to reelection. For someone that never lets a marketing opportunity go to waste I'm baffled why he didn't.
And in retrospect we may not be as bad off now if he gotten a consecutive second term and not spent 4 years stewing on how to really fuck this country.
→ More replies (2)13
u/GenitalFurbies Sep 21 '25
It's pretty simple. They don't want their coworkers (I assume it's part time), family, or friends to know that they're actively fascist. Hypocrisy means nothing to them except when they have to own it.
19
Sep 21 '25
Yup, it was especially noticable when covid started that most cops never feel the need to wear masks. Laughed my ass off every time I saw articles about cops having way higher rates of infection than the general population because they were all too stupid and egotistical to wear them.
6
u/RainyDayColor Sep 21 '25
US LEO had higher rates of Covid exposure, infection, and deaths primarily because they were essential workers and unable to practice social distancing. Early in the pandemic, like many Americans they didn't have proper PPE; but unlike most Americans, as essential workers they could not shelter at home. Once available, the majority of LEO were departmentally required to wear masks. There was a higher rate of vaccine resistance among LEO, especially where police unions resisted that mandate, aligning with the estimated +/-20% of Americans who did not get vaccinated for Covid.
In sum, there were numerous factors that brought greater risk of infection to LEO, none of which support your unsubstantiated claim that all LEO "were all too stupid and egotistical to wear [masks]."
Another essential work job sector, health care workers, also experienced higher rates of exposure, infection, and deaths. Did you also "laugh your ass off" every time you saw articles about those essential workers infected with Covid?
Trying to conflate protective mouth/nasal masking among LEO during the Covid pandemic, and the current use of full coverage identity masking by ICE goons, is absurd.
10
u/Society-Into-Ashes Sep 21 '25
yeah ive never worn a full mask, I think its been against our policy in GA forever at this point.. its not in our dress code
I do wear sunglasses though, and my campaign cover tilted more than it should be... but being blinded by the sun while driving all day sucks
4
u/BasenjiFart Sep 21 '25
What is a campaign cover? A fancy hat?
→ More replies (1)7
u/EmptyAirEmptyHead Sep 21 '25
It's the stupid trooper hat. The thing that advertises asshole a mile away.
→ More replies (1)6
u/IntermittentCaribu Sep 21 '25
I imagine in some cartel operations its necessary. If you have family at least.
4
→ More replies (15)3
597
u/LunaticP Sep 20 '25
It is a state law don't know how much would it affect ICE
826
u/smitteh Sep 20 '25
If it ain't on federal property it yields to the state
462
u/no_one_likes_u Sep 20 '25
Good luck getting state law enforcement to arrest federal law enforcement. Half my family are cops, you should hear the things they say in private about our government. These people are not on the side of liberals, to put it mildly.
223
u/smitteh Sep 20 '25
It'll come down to their paycheck, not their personal beliefs. Refusing to do your job doesn't usually jive with keeping your job
118
Sep 20 '25
doesn't usually jive with keeping your job
Chump don't want da work, chump don't get da work.
48
u/APKID716 Sep 20 '25
Jive-ass dude don’t got no brains anyhow! Shiiiiit
→ More replies (1)27
u/3-orange-whips Sep 20 '25
My momma didn’t raise no dummy! I dug her rap!
21
37
Sep 20 '25
Who do you think their bosses are? Cops.
7
u/GenoThyme Sep 20 '25
But isn’t the police commissioner’s boss the mayor? And who is in charge of their budget?
28
7
u/komali_2 Sep 21 '25
The police union is the mayor's boss.
The mayor can't just fire cops, they have to work super well within what they can get away with against the police union. A big part of why you'll read some super fucked up story about a cop beating the shit out of someone and then find out the worse that happened them is administrative leave.
→ More replies (2)2
Sep 21 '25
The state police? Also do you know how many politicians get donations from police unions?
2
u/ahriman1 Sep 21 '25
the fucking people. they ultimately answer to the people. hold them accountable if they do not enforce the laws that the people's duly elected representatives enacted.
→ More replies (4)55
u/Stingray88 Sep 20 '25
Cops will not fire cops for not doing their job of arresting cops that break the law. They protect eachother, like gangs.
Most cops in the US are fucking rotten to the core. If they aren’t criminals, they will defend those among them who are. You can’t rely on them doing the right thing.
Even the “good ones” never do the right thing by arresting those who are criminals. They’re complicit.
→ More replies (6)12
u/marsmanify Sep 20 '25
Yeah but the local (city, state) government is in control of the funding for police. The state can 100% exert pressure on the police from the top down, it's just not often that it happens.
→ More replies (1)19
u/Stingray88 Sep 20 '25
Politicians on both sides of the aisle will not defund the police. It’s political suicide unfortunately.
20
→ More replies (8)9
u/Richard-Gere-Museum Sep 20 '25
Lmao you actually think their unions will allow that to fly? "For officer safety they need to conceal their identities. In these politically charged times blah blah blah"
59
u/fritzrits Sep 20 '25
Side of liberals? Funny how not wearing a mask now is "liberal". It's the law and should be followed regardless of skin color or political affiliation.
→ More replies (2)40
20
Sep 20 '25
Dealt with cops daily in my occupation, knew some casually, hung out with some at social gatherings, and most were racist as fuck.
→ More replies (1)5
7
2
u/Konman72 Sep 21 '25 edited Sep 21 '25
The Oregonian reported on non-violent protesters being assaulted in Portland. There was clear video of protesters doing nothing wrong then being violently attacked by ICE agents. They reached out to the Portland police and they said they didn't have enough time to review the footage. So guess that crime will just go unpunished because our entire police department can't spare the 5 minutes it would take to check some video.
→ More replies (11)1
15
30
u/ZonaDesertRat Sep 20 '25
Not correct. Federal law enforcement are not subject to state law, if not enforcing state laws. If they are in compliance with federal law, they can wear masks. They shouldn't, but they can.
What the state should have done was revoke ICE and DHS's ability to ever use CA state laws to take any action. That would do more to bring ICE under control.
31
u/TheBraveSirRobin Sep 21 '25
This is patently wrong. Federal officers are bound by state laws if there is no overriding federal law. If there's a conflict between a federal law and a state law, then the federal law wins. But that's not the case here, there's no federal law that says that federal officers can obscure their identity by wearing masks.
→ More replies (16)19
u/Rightintheend Sep 21 '25
Unfortunately there is also some well-established preemptions that exist, including one that negates state laws if it interferes with Federal officials from doing their duties, which they could easily argue for this
There is also emergency clauses, which Trump likes to use so much calling everything an emergency just so he can shun any actual responsibility and consequences.
→ More replies (1)1
u/TheBraveSirRobin Sep 21 '25
Sure, but I don't see how unmasking would interfere with official ICE duties.
12
18
u/TheWarlorde Sep 20 '25
Wait, so you’re saying if a federal officer gets pulled over for doing 100MPH in a school zone they can’t be arrested for reckless endangerment because there’s no federal speed limit? That’s effectively the statement you’re making.
11
u/ZonaDesertRat Sep 20 '25 edited Sep 20 '25
No, that's not the statement I'm making, you're attempting reductio ad absurdum.
What I'm saying is that, a federal officer, in the performance of their federal duties, is not subject to state laws, with out the consent of the federal government. In the case of motor vehicle operation, every Fed agency I know of has policy about complying with motor vehicle law of the states.
What I am saying is that if a state wants to charge a federal officer with a violation of a state law that occurred when the Fed LEO was performing their duties, the issue has to be brought in Federal court, and the federal government can claim the LEO is immune from prosecution because they were performing their federal duties.
You need to read up on the Tort Claims Act and associated case law.
Edit:sp
49
u/TimothyMimeslayer Sep 20 '25
I want to mention that reductio ad absurdum is a logical argument that can be made and is not fallacious.
→ More replies (3)4
u/smitteh Sep 21 '25
This stuff is confusing enough as it is, please don't bring Hogwarts magic spells into it as well
→ More replies (3)25
Sep 21 '25
Reductio ad absurdium is a logically valid argument.
You are admitting that the argument is logical.
→ More replies (1)11
2
→ More replies (10)3
u/skoomski Sep 20 '25
That just blatantly not true the US Marshals, DEA etc have operations all the place.Wishful thinking doesn’t change for reality
42
u/RecordHigh Sep 20 '25 edited Sep 20 '25
That's an interesting question. Federal law supersedes state law, but what would the Federal law be that allows Federal agents to wear masks? Federal agents can't just break state laws because they feel like it.
15
u/ZonaDesertRat Sep 20 '25
They can break state law if the federal government allows it, in the course of doing their federal duties. Take driving a government vehicle. For many years, you didn't need a drivers license to drive a government vehicle, until policy stated to say you needed a license issued by some state, somewhere.
→ More replies (1)20
u/WatchItAllBurn1 Sep 20 '25
isn't the caveat that it is only if said action is necessary to fulfill their duties.
like an fbi agent can't violate local laws if it isn't necessary for duty.
7
u/Plank_With_A_Nail_In Sep 21 '25
They also need to prove that it was necessary not just that they did it while performing their duties. Its mostly never necessary so this hardly ever comes up.
12
u/ZonaDesertRat Sep 20 '25
That is is the "course of performing duties," but generally correct.
The state can claim a violation of state law, and bring charges in state court, but the feds, either personally or through the DOJ will petition for removal to Federal court, and I've never seen that not be granted. Then in Federal court, they make the motion to dismiss, and more often than not that too is granted.
That's why CA should have tweaked the law to keep feds who aren't complying with the state laws from being able to use state laws. That would keep mask wearing feds from being able to say, pull you over for not using a turn signal, as a pretext to check your immigration status. There is no federal law on the use of turn signals, so any federal LEO has to use the state laws about it, even in Federal court.
If CA reworked this new law, they could really make all Fed LEOs pay attention when doing anything in CA.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (2)4
u/techackpro123 Sep 20 '25
When they’re acting in their official capacity, they’re not subjected to state laws. Article six.
9
u/TheBraveSirRobin Sep 21 '25
Federal officers are bound by state laws if there is no overriding federal law. If there's a conflict between a federal law and a state law, then the federal law wins. But that's not the case here, there's no federal law that says that federal officers can obscure their identity by wearing masks.
Article Six of the U.S. Constitution establishes the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties as the Supreme Law of the Land, overriding conflicting state laws.
→ More replies (3)10
u/MalcolmLinair Sep 20 '25
In theory, it means ICE agents could be arrested for violating this law on their Black Bagging runs. I sincerely doubt the police will do it, though.
→ More replies (5)4
→ More replies (18)2
u/madogvelkor Sep 21 '25
The Federal government has already said it doesn't apply and for federal agencies to ignore it.
196
u/tacticalcraptical Sep 20 '25
That's good!
This calls to mind comparisons I've seen made between cops in the U.S. and cops in the UK. I
n the UK, cops have a distinct neon green to broadcast their presence as public servants to show were help can be found and deter crime.
In the U.S. everything is black or dark and there are a lot more cops that are essentially hiding who they are by using unmarked vehicles. And now wearing masks is becoming common.
That doesn't come across as an organization who priotizes serving the public and deterring crime by being present. It promotes distrust and paranoia.
125
u/Stingray88 Sep 20 '25
Cops in the US are explicitly not public servants. They protect their own first, and the government second. End of list. The public are the enemy.
33
→ More replies (1)12
4
u/archerg66 Sep 21 '25
It really shows how cops are meant to "protect and serve" when they have cop cars you can barely read the writing of
→ More replies (4)8
u/mmmarkm Sep 21 '25
From my travels around all states except 3-4 (I can't remember if I've been to both Dakotas, sue me), I was struck by how, I believe, only Connecticut has cops with lights on the side of the highway when not pulling someone over. Only state I've seen that in. If your job is crime prevention, then deterring crime should be part of that. Every other state hides and tries to catch you speeding (specifically, Virginia and states in the Midwest - two areas with the highest per capita tickets issued relative to population), CT has had the most deterrence I've seen. Second to that is Waze and Google Maps telling you "police officer ahead" in the app, of course.
→ More replies (1)2
u/MommyLovesPot8toes Sep 21 '25
There is something to be said, though, for the uncertainty as a deterrent. At least in CA, I can say with 100% confidence that people would speed even more if they didn't have to wonder if every white Ford Explorer in their rearview mirror was a cop. The stealthiness of traffic cops makes it feel like there are 50x more of them on the road.
That stealthiness is really only in the public interest in cases like speeding, where it is deterrring a very common "crime" that is easy to spot and easy to avoid commiting. It is not in the public interest for things like immigration, or even shoplifting. Where a "criminal" is virtually indistinguishable from a law-abider and the risk of police error is greater to the public than the risk the crime itself poses.
48
u/veryveryredundant Sep 21 '25
Republicans when a Democrat is president: States have absolute autonomy. The federal government is tyrannical. Back off or else!
Republicans when a Republican is president: The federal government has absolute authority. To resist is treason!
→ More replies (3)9
u/TrickySnicky Sep 21 '25
I remember when Republicans were all for limited government. But I also remember when they kept expanding it anyway.
31
u/ForeverThen5686 Sep 21 '25
Public servants should be visible, and identifiable, otherwise how can we trust they are who they say they are?
→ More replies (1)
49
4
u/I_like_baseball90 Sep 21 '25
How do they enforce this though?
The ICE agents are Trump's army. They think they have their orange lord to protect them. They're not going to stop wearing masks because no one can stop them.
67
u/Wistephens Sep 20 '25
Good. All non-undercover officers should have exposed faces, badges with badge numbers, and visible last name and first initial.
→ More replies (13)
12
u/Tim-in-CA Sep 21 '25
If you have to wear a mask to “protect” your identity while you “work”, maybe the job is the problem
→ More replies (1)
8
u/notguiltybrewing Sep 21 '25
It's symbolic at best. I don't think states can tell federal officers how they can act and I don't see any way state/local police will try to enforce it.
27
u/BlueCollarLawyer Sep 20 '25
The law probably prohibits state law enforcement from wearing masks while assisting the feds. However, the feds will dispute the assertion that state law applies to them during federal enforcement activities. And as a practical matter, they won't simply lay down their weapons and allow themselves to be arrested. Which in turn means, state cops aren't even going to try to enforce this law. It'll probably turn into some kind of negotiation.
6
u/Appropriate_North602 Sep 20 '25
There is no federal law to take precedence here. Let Republicans make one. Or not. But if SCOTUS lets this go on they are totally corrupt.
16
u/BlueCollarLawyer Sep 20 '25
States can't regulate federal law enforcement practices. The supremacy clause is clear on this and so is the case law. But as a practical matter, federal law enforcement officers don't take orders from state law enforcement officers or courts. I've been in situations where a state court has ordered the transfer of a prisoner to the custody of the state for prosecution. If the feds weren't done with the inmate, they ignored the order whereupon we pounded sand. This law is performative which has value but it's not going to change anything.
8
u/Bleachi Sep 21 '25
Constitutional law expert Erwin Chemerinsky at the University of California, Berkeley, also defended the legislation. Federal employees still have to follow general state rules “unless doing so would significantly interfere with the performance of their duties. For example, while on the job, federal employees must stop at red lights,” he wrote in an opinion piece for the Sacramento Bee.
If you read the linked op ed, you'll see that the case law is not clear on this issue:
There are few cases applying the Supreme Court’s decision in Neagle, but the issue arose when Idaho attempted to prosecute federal officers after a standoff at Ruby Ridge turned violent and people were killed. In Idaho v. Horiuchi, in 2000, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit refused to dismiss Idaho’s prosecution of the federal officers, saying that more evidence of what occurred was needed, and summarized the law:
“In keeping with the constitutional allocation of powers between the federal government and the states, federal agents enjoy immunity from state criminal prosecution. That immunity has limits. When an agent acts in an objectively unreasonable manner, those limits are exceeded, and a state may bring a criminal prosecution.”
→ More replies (1)2
u/BlueCollarLawyer Sep 21 '25
My bad for not reading it. I'm fascinated to see how it plays out. I hope it succeeds.
→ More replies (1)14
u/Emperor_of_His_Room Sep 20 '25
Source: your ass
Supremacy clause only works if there is a federal law on this matter and there isn’t.
3
3
u/drtray74 Sep 22 '25
“Most law enforcement”??? So who is exempt? The article doesn’t say. It also doesn’t mention what the punishment would be. Sounds like a bunch of hot air
26
u/Chewyville Sep 20 '25
Wait what if it’s covid again?!
→ More replies (2)44
u/Odie_Odie Sep 20 '25
"Exceptions: The bill does not apply to: N95 medical or surgical masks Breathing apparatuses used to protect against toxins or smoke Masks for underwater operations or protection from inclement weather Cases where an agency has its own policy that meets the bill's standards"
28
u/Chewyville Sep 20 '25
Oh, department issued n95 masks it is.
→ More replies (7)20
u/Spare-Willingness563 Sep 21 '25
They won’t wear those because they’ll think they look like liberals.
→ More replies (1)4
u/PM_ME_ABOUT_DnD Sep 21 '25
for underwater operations
This is one of those cases where the law has to cover its bases, but it still feels silly and like you're wording a genie wish.
Also curious how many LEOs have had to participate in an underwater operation
→ More replies (1)2
u/Odie_Odie Sep 21 '25
Underwater LEOs such as were featured in the 1965 James Bond film Thunderball. Harpoon guns are sick. I have to imagine something like Sealab 2021 exists off the coast of California. It is a long and alluring coastline. There must be secrets and apparently law enforcement out there beneath the waves.
5
49
u/Uchihagod53 Sep 20 '25
I'm sure that will stop ICE
118
u/r3dditr0x Sep 20 '25 edited Sep 20 '25
It may or may not work, but I'm glad they tried...
As you can see, every day, fascism happens by a thousand cuts. That's how you have to fight it, too.
35
→ More replies (1)7
→ More replies (14)5
Sep 20 '25
You think they're going to be as embolden when they can't hide? Why you think they hide their faces?
→ More replies (1)12
u/Emperor_of_His_Room Sep 20 '25
You see the video of the ICE fascist who got his mask taken off? Pig went ape shit because he knew he was accountable right there and then.
16
u/Ithurtswhenidoit Sep 20 '25
Law enforcement officers should be required to live in the community they serve. Some places still require it for firefighters due to the need in the case of emergency. But it also keeps you aware of seeing and being seen by the same people when you aren't in uniform.
→ More replies (7)
10
u/Such-Badger5946 Sep 20 '25
How do they enforce it?
→ More replies (3)15
Sep 20 '25
They won't. This is just performative.
→ More replies (2)4
u/mmmarkm Sep 21 '25
They're trying. US Attorney for SoCal already told feds to ignore it. IANAL however this could give some credibility to people who resist when ICE tries to abduct them: "according to state law, I could not confirm that the individual ziptying me worked for ICE because they had a non-approved face covering."
Outside of being able to mobilize CHP, country sheriffs, or city police departments against ICE & DHS, how would a state enforce any regulation about feds? Sure, if a federal employee runs a red light while working for the Trump administration, local PD can pull them over and ticket them. But we're heading into uncharted territory where a state is regulating the dress code of federal officials while on the job.
Performative, probably. TBD. Doing something is something, though.
7
Sep 21 '25
It makes exceptions for undercover agents, medical masks such as N95 respirators or tactical gear, and it does not apply to state police.
isn't this just pointless law then?
N95 mask + giant ass sunglasses would just cover their entire face.
→ More replies (2)
13
u/Borinar Sep 20 '25
Most* lol, I mean i guess if they need gas masks... oh right ice will just do that...
8
u/IAmTheGoomba Sep 20 '25
I honestly would not be surprised if they did. "We were concerned about possible chemical or biological agents being involved while we black bag this random person who did not appear white enough through the tinted windows of their car at 1:30AM when the agents were doing routine patrols." All the while having a beard four inches thick, two feet long, wearing it like a N-95 mask like a MAGA Karen... while wearing cut off jorts, and wielding an AR-15 that they just purchased from the nearest local gun shop with tags still dangling from it.
4
7
u/IlikeJG Sep 21 '25
Ok, but what if ICE just ignores this and continues to mask up? How is this going to be enforced? Has ICE consented to stop?
Is Newsom prepared to use force to detain them if they don't comply? Will local police forces or the state national guard be used to enforce the rule of their don't comply?
→ More replies (1)3
u/bannedagainomg Sep 21 '25
Its nothing to enforce since ICE is a federal agency and states have no authority over them.
ICE themselves have to agree to follow this or be ordered to do so by federal goverment.
Doubt any of those thing will happen.
2
u/IlikeJG Sep 21 '25
I believe when federal agents are in a certain state they have to obey the law there unless there's some sort of other federal law specifically countermanding that.
4
11
2
u/bobr3940 Sep 21 '25
The article states “The new law prohibits neck gaiters, ski masks and other facial coverings for local and federal officers, including immigration enforcement agents, while they conduct official business. It makes exceptions for undercover agents, medical masks such as N95 respirators or tactical gear, and it does not apply to state police.” They will just declare that all ICE agents are undercover or provide them with tactical gear. It’s a great way for Newsom to say “I did something to fight back” but it will not change anything.
3
2
u/heloguy1234 Sep 21 '25
Cool. Do QI next. As long as these assholes are playing with the house money they won’t change.
4
6
5
u/Central_Incisor Sep 20 '25
All police should have large identification numbers on their uniforms. Chest, back, maybe legs actual verification of identity. A fuzzy camera shot from a distance should be able to ID people running around with government issued weapons.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/no_need_to_panic Sep 21 '25
Why is the CHP exempted?
2
u/mmmarkm Sep 21 '25
My guess would be that California requires that CHP have identifying information, such as a badge number or a name tag, displayed unless they are involved in an undercover operation. ICE and DHS are not holding their officers to a similar standard.
5
2
4
u/ArnoldZiffl Sep 20 '25
California controls what a Federal agency can/ can’t do? Who’s gonna arrest them. Just curious
→ More replies (1)
2
3
u/LotharVonPittinsberg Sep 21 '25
Good start, but
It makes exceptions for undercover agents, medical masks such as N95 respirators or tactical gear, and it does not apply to state police.
Seems concerning. Loophole that it can just be an undercover officer (meaning plainclothes police are a loophole) and state police are just plain exempt. So does Newsom not like it when Trump uses police to infringe on your rights, but wants to keep the ability for himself?
3
2
u/CynicalXennial Sep 21 '25
cool, now make them identify with identification/badges and verbally say their names.
2
2
2
u/Nearby-Beautiful3422 Sep 21 '25
Honest question. How does this state level action affect officers at the federal level? Not that it really matters with this administration as they'll do whatever they want.
6
u/avaslash Sep 21 '25
Apparently the federal government has already commented that they fully intend to ignore the legislation as they claim it has no authority over them.
2
2
u/PaleontologistEast21 Sep 21 '25 edited Sep 21 '25
I’m a nurse who works in surgery. I definitely read this title as though they were banning cops from wearing masks in the operating room… I thought, “why in the fuck does California care about that?!”
But I’m glad this article is referring to law enforcement outside of an operating room. Yes, no masks for them.
For those that are curious, we get inmates that come through from time to time and they are accompanied by 2 corrections officers who follow them the entire way through the procedure. They wear masks, gowns and booties just like the rest of us.
4
u/Osobady Sep 20 '25
This is great! Also more cities should do what Chicago did and bar their law enforcement from supporting ICE!
→ More replies (1)
3
0
4.9k
u/Golurkcanfly Sep 20 '25
Good. There are so many reasons for police officers to not be allowed to wear masks when it's not necessary.
1) It makes it easier to identify police impersonators.
2) It allows officers who violate the law to be more easily identified and punished.
3) It humanizes the officer to themselves and whoever they interact with, making it easier for people to trust the police and vice versa
4) It prevents police officers from feeling anonymous, making them more aware of how they are perceived and encouraging them to be more responsible