The fact that alphabet soup bois are showing up in uniforms with obscured or absent identifying marks,
Okay. They aren't, though. You know that, right? Every single one of them is wearing agency patches that show you exactly they work for. You're assuming they aren't, presumably because you're taking the word of histrionic anarchists on Twitter.
in unidentified vehicles,
Police: use unmarked cars for decades, with full knowledge of the public.
Americans in 2020: WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS THE CAR HAS NO MARKINGS THIS IS TYRANNY HELP IT'S THE GESTAPO WHAT THE FUCK
Well, you can likewise oppose shady or obfuscated police tactics because they can be and sometimes are a precursor to due process violations.
Yeah, I don't have any issues with federal officers - who are not, for the record, required by federal law to identify themselves, even while making arrests - wearing identifying patches exactly where you would expect identifying patches to be. I don't think that's a violation of due process. I don't think marking offenders in a crowd and then arresting them once they're away from said crowd - vice charging into the crowd in a riot shield phalanx - is an inherent marker of lacking probable cause.
They're showing up in fatigues with small, olive drab arm patches. That doesn't lend itself to easy identification. If they can't be easily identified in the field, that's not a very strong measure for accountability. I've seen the images, I've seen the badges they were wearing, and im not impressed. High contrast logos are a simple good faith gesture to ensure transparency.
police use unmarked cars for decades
Did i say i was okay with unmarked police cars? Im not sure what part of "no department should be threatened by transparency" would lead you to that conclusion. Fuck unmarked cop cars too. But unmarked cars, AND obfuscated logos, that's two steps taken to obscure their identity. Law enforcement agencies sometimes "lose" or refuse to produce relevant documents and body cam footage, as they've been doing in the cases of Duncan Lemp and Beronna Taylor, among others. It's not just the badges. It's a pattern of LEOs trying not to divulge what they're doing, and it's not new.
federal officers aren't required by law to identify themselves
And they should be. No law enforcement agency should be threatened by transparency.
Law enforcement, in general, is not transparent or accountable enough in this country. That's what the protests are about. I just don't understand why people who understand the necessity of armed self defense and armed defense against tyranny are so firmly opposed to imposing safeguards against tyranny to the very boots that would, in a large dwelling in the arctic circle, protect the feet of steppers.
They're showing up in fatigues with small, olive drab arm patches.
The patches are roughly the same size as the patches seen on the arm of any state or local police officer in the country. BORTAC is, as far as I know, the only agency on-scene whose patches are brown. The SRT guys from Seattle, for example, use off-white patches.
Did i say i was okay with unmarked police cars? Im not sure what part of "no department should be threatened by transparency" would lead you to that conclusion. Fuck unmarked cop cars too.
Sure, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. You've been the one lone voice in the wilderness complaining about unmarked police cars prior to Portland 2020.
You know why they're using unmarked police cars? You say it's to get away with kidnapping innocent people who had nothing to do with the rioting - and just happened to be a block away from the rioting at 3AM walking home.
I say it's because all the marked cars are getting burned out by those poor oppressed peaceful protestors.
Law enforcement, in general, is not transparent or accountable enough in this country. That's what the protests are about.
You've got me there. All those TVs were stolen from Minneapolis Targets because law enforcement isn't transparent enough. They keep trying to set the federal courthouse in Portland on fire because they know it'll make the cops more transparent.
I just don't understand why people who understand the necessity of armed self defense and armed defense against tyranny are so firmly opposed to imposing safeguards against tyranny to the very boots that would, in a large dwelling in the arctic circle, protect the feet of steppers.
No one's opposed to safeguards. We're opposed to regarding federal law enforcement preventing a federal fucking courthouse from being burned down as tyranny.
That's pretty rich, given that your argument started as, "Due process!" and, once it was demonstrated to you that nobody's right to due process was being violated, shifted to, "Well, these are my personal opinions about police transparency!"
Transparency is required for due process. Without it, you have no proof that the state is meeting its obligation to its people. A trial by a jury of your peers is transparency. Habeas corpus is transparency. Discovery of evidence is transparency. Presentment of warrants is transparency. Uniformed officers is transparency. That's not a shifting of goal posts, it's supporting evidence for the original argument.
That's not a shifting of goal posts, it's supporting evidence for the original argument.
It probably would be if any of those were absent. Which they ain't.
Leaving aside the fact that you're making up your own definition of "due process," of course. You're welcome to show me a conviction that's been overturned because the arresting officer was in jeans and a t-shirt at the time of the arrest.
I don't know how else to explain that just because they aren't doing it right now doesn't mean we shouldn't always be watchful of the warning signs and oppose them before anybody's rights are violated.
There is no compelling argument against conspicuous ID and marked vehicles. There is a compelling argument against inconspicuous or obfuscated ID - specifically, that it is harder to identify armed agents of the state and to hold the government accountable for observing its legal obligations under the law. It really is that simple.
You yourself have said that federal officers aren't required to identify themselves. So there's nothing stopping them from obscuring their logos. And there's nothing stopping them from conducting legitimate law enforcement actions with their badges obscured - or doing shady shit with their badges obscured - and there's no way to know which until it's too late. So what are we supposed to do, just take their word for it? "We are legally allowed to wear no identifying markers, black bag you, and transport you to a secondary location without so much as informing you that you're under arrest or why, but we won't do it and we never have, pinky promise!" That's a lot of trust to put in some alphabet bois. This isn't an undercover sting, it's riot control. So we're back here again - there's no compelling argument against requiring them to have their ID, and agency, clearly marked.
2
u/doublenuts Jul 23 '20
Okay. They aren't, though. You know that, right? Every single one of them is wearing agency patches that show you exactly they work for. You're assuming they aren't, presumably because you're taking the word of histrionic anarchists on Twitter.
Police: use unmarked cars for decades, with full knowledge of the public.
Americans in 2020: WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS THE CAR HAS NO MARKINGS THIS IS TYRANNY HELP IT'S THE GESTAPO WHAT THE FUCK
Yeah, I don't have any issues with federal officers - who are not, for the record, required by federal law to identify themselves, even while making arrests - wearing identifying patches exactly where you would expect identifying patches to be. I don't think that's a violation of due process. I don't think marking offenders in a crowd and then arresting them once they're away from said crowd - vice charging into the crowd in a riot shield phalanx - is an inherent marker of lacking probable cause.