I didn't, but if I would have down voted you it was because I'm not sure I believe you, and you didn't cite law, statue, or court decision confirming your claim. Or explain why you claim to believe that...
Both would be important parts of a useful comment. Perhaps the problem isn't disagreement, but your comment was just low effort that appears to come from anger and frustration?
Because your other toxic comments are getting flagged, I felt this one deserved a response.
> Show me the law that says my nosy neighbor should be allowed to walk over to my house and demand to know the names of the cops are who are talking to me, and force them to reveal what crime I am being accused of, what evidence they have, etc.
The US has constantly upheld the rights of the citizens to record the actions of police.
But it's also explicitly required by law in CA
The right to record: CA Penal Code 1. 15. 1.5 - Section 632.
> [right to privacy from being recorded] but excludes a communication made in a public gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive, or administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.
Uniform police are required to wear identification: CA Penal Code 2.3 4.5 - Peace Officers Section 830.10.
> 830.10. Any uniformed peace officer shall wear a badge, nameplate, or other device which bears clearly on its face the identification number or name of the officer.
In addition to that most police departments (maybe all of them) in CA have policies that officers need to identify clear themselves when asked. It's also interesting to watch some of the "audit the police" videos on youtube. The asshole cops never want to identify, but the good ones behaving like cops you'd want to interact with, are all eager to share their identity. There's one video I remember where a cop, who was being a shitbag, said "we don't have cards" when asked for one, and two other cops also there, the ones worthy of being cops, instantly corrected him and both gave their card to him. So quickly I'm sure it's department policy to do so. One of them giving the shitbag cop the stink eye for lying to him.
Good cops don't feel the need to hide who they are.
> No one is talking about "recording". Of course you can record anyone in a public space. You're moving the goalposts.
that's an unhelpful amount of pedantry, but sure you got me, you said walk over and demanded a bunch of information.... which you might notice, no one else said either. The discussion was about if identifying police was legal.
sigh
> Also lol @ "toxic". Sometimes I forget that people can be offended by insufficient outrage.
> In a famous example you might have heard of, the federal government can overrule states' laws legalizing slavery, and make it illegal nationwide.
This is a very demeaning way to phrase this, it's dripping with disgust and contempt. You may not have intended either, but without a doubt both are included by phrasing it this way.
Because both are divisive and obstacles to a fair and healthy conversation, that makes them toxic. As in harmful to others, or the discussion.
Is that a fair interpretation of your comment? IMO, Yes. But even if you elect to disagree, in a very heated thread a reasonable person knows to expect their messages will be read in the context of frustration which makes negative inferences much more likely. A good person who wants to be understood will take care to avoid that. But a toxic person will embed such language ignorantly or intentionally to stir up shit.
A lot of people probably would call insufficient outrage toxic; but that's not why I did. It doesn't have to be about insufficient outrage, when you elect to write things in a way that appears to imply contemt (instead of collaboration) for the people who you're trying to talk to, that's toxic.
No idea if you meant to or not, but that is the message you sent to everyone who down voted you. So really the question remains, are you trying to be dismissive and disrespectful to the people you're talking to? Or are you just bad at communicating with people who you disagree with?
> I didn't feel the need to cite a fundamental tenet of US history.
That omission is why you got downvoted though.
I also don't think they can just ignore state law without an existing federal law allowing them to ignore it. Is there an existing federal law that says they can wear masks?
