Why I am against unidentified federal agents acting as police.

This is why I am against unidentified federal agents acting as police.

First to state what I hope is obvious , looters should be jailed. Yet police who use excessive force on unarmed civilians who are no threat should also be jailed. Watched anonymous federal police officers beat a Navy veteran which resulted in injuries including a broken hand. Another time it was an old man who got his head cracked open. If a thing would be illegal for me to do then it should also be illegal for the government to do to it’s civilians. (That thing is this case being physical assault of unarmed civilians who are no threat.)

The man could have been arrested for noncompliance of an order. If he resisted arrest then a measured use of force is justified. If he resisted violently then a more injurious form of force may be justified. I know that there are times when bad cops get singled out for criminal prosecution, but we need to do better at policing the police.

All law enforcement that is policing the public needs to be clearly identified so we know who to take action against in cases of excessive force. I am tired of some police officers violating laws that the rest of us have to follow. The more the bad apples get away with using excessive force, the less fear they have of using it again. The police need to fear being subjected to the laws they enforce if they cannot respect those laws.

To head off claims that I am a cop hater, I am not. I respect law enforcement and thank them for the protection they offer my and other communities. Yet my respect is limited to law abiding cops who respect and follow the laws they enforce.

This should not be a partisan issue.

 

Um... just to point out an obvious logical inconsistency in what you wrote: If I gave an order to someone, would it be okay for me to arrest them for noncompliance?
That being the case, it seems you don't entirely believe what you wrote, that "If a thing would be illegal for me to do then it should also be illegal for the government to do to it's civilians".


You might not have phrased what you were trying to say the best way.

 

I think you know what I was getting at. If I beat someone who is not a threat to me or anyone else I go to jail. The same should apply to the police.

 

Let me just interject and point out the possibility that criminals could dress as law enforcement.
So I'm not sure law enforcement visibly identifying themselves as law enforcement really enters into the equation as a fundamental factor.

Sorry to parse details.

 

This is not just a problem confined to law enforcement on the ground. It also exists with judges and prosecutors.

Trying to deal with it is not quite as simple as you imagine it to be.
Any time you do something as a job, there is a potential for mistakes to be made. Those can happen as a matter of course.
The dilemma is how exactly to hold the decision-makers responsible and accountable. What criteria to use, and what disciplinary action to use.
And if excessive consequences are likely to be used, there may likely be a cover up, and understandably so.
You simply can't fire every law enforcement officer for making a mistake. That would not be pragmatic, and probably would not be fair.

Unfortunately there does not really exist a logical systematic way to deal with this, it is all subjective, individual people making the decisions.

 

You are grasping at straws. If you have evidence that the law enforcement officers who assaulted the Navy vet and the old man were police impersonators then provide proof. While I agree that in rare cases there are police impersonators, it would be a hard sell to say some unknowingly slipped in with law enforcement in Portland and were the ones beating the demonstrators.

 

Beating someone who is not threat is not a mistake, it is a crime. We are not going to agree but I thank you for your input.

 

When your OP starts with a lie from the get go, the rest is not worth reading.

 

Claiming I lied does not prove that I did. What lie did I allegedly tell?

 

First, George Floyd was murdered by that cop, I don’t know anyone, including my LAPD, California highway patrol, or San Bernardino county sheriff friends of mine. They all agree it was wrong.
Second, I don’t believe law enforcement should be allowed access to any weaponry that is not afforded to the general public. What ever limitations are on us, should be on law enforcement as well.
Third, police officers have to deal with the worst of us on a daily basis and they become callous. Maybe if we weren’t such s-heads, cops wouldn’t be that way.
Fourth and final, protest and rally til your heart is content, I have no problem with that at all. But if you vandalize, burn, loot, or deface any personal or public property, you need to have your head cracked, be jailed, and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

 

You called them "unidentified"

Do i really need to post the series of photos where their ID is clear....again?

Lies get old, repeated lies grow stale.

 

You want the officers' names so violent mobs can know where the officer's family to attack is, right? Name any time that for any lawsuit - civil or criminal - the officer has not been identified.

Of course, you also insist that the law should require that protester/looters/vandals MUST also wear name tags so if any of them break criminal laws they know who to arrest, correct? There are thousands of vandals, looters, arsonists and rioters who have not been identified for criminal and civil action.

Thus, yes, your message is anti-police and anti-law enforcement.

 

Having historically been against the Feds stepping in to state business, I am at somewhat of a loss as to whether I support them doing so now. I never would have thought I'd see state and local agencies ordered to let businesses be burned and looted. At a certain point, the Feds should have an obligation to protect citizens from crime when local agencies refuse to do so...

But I do agree that they should be clearly identifying themselves at all times. The 'badge' of LE is a symbol of the authority delegated to it by We The People, and should be displayed while enforcing the law.

I don't think we necessarily need their names, but certainly their agency should be clearly known.

 

Here is the agency, right on the shoulder.

 

If those patches indicate who is to be held accountable for their actions, then that is sufficient.

It doesnt seem like they're all so clearly marked, however.

 

I cant see it clearly, but it's obviously the agency and maybe an officer ID#

 

I think the issue is when they don't have such patches. Its difficult to hold 'anonymous' LE accountable.

 

Evidently they DO have them.