14th and R Street masked gun men attack and disappear delivery guy for political reasons

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Democratic politicians need to submit a new law that all federal police need to have body cams recording and uploading via 5G during any operations.
It would have broad support among both republicans and democrat voters.

Body cams aren’t like ring doorbells. You can’t just order them from Amazon. There’s a long and drawn out research and bid process.

Let's get it started, Congress people! These jackboots are never going to identify themselves or show their faces. So pass a bill that requires body cams ON during any abduction, I mean arrest. Then give it teeth by removing any immunity from prosecution for their actions during the arrest unless body cam footage is recorded.

We can stop this if we're smart about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Democratic politicians need to submit a new law that all federal police need to have body cams recording and uploading via 5G during any operations.
It would have broad support among both republicans and democrat voters.

Body cams aren’t like ring doorbells. You can’t just order them from Amazon. There’s a long and drawn out research and bid process.

Let's get it started, Congress people! These jackboots are never going to identify themselves or show their faces. So pass a bill that requires body cams ON during any abduction, I mean arrest. Then give it teeth by removing any immunity from prosecution for their actions during the arrest unless body cam footage is recorded.

We can stop this if we're smart about it.

Let’s build a wall too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Democratic politicians need to submit a new law that all federal police need to have body cams recording and uploading via 5G during any operations.
It would have broad support among both republicans and democrat voters.

Body cams aren’t like ring doorbells. You can’t just order them from Amazon. There’s a long and drawn out research and bid process.

Let's get it started, Congress people! These jackboots are never going to identify themselves or show their faces. So pass a bill that requires body cams ON during any abduction, I mean arrest. Then give it teeth by removing any immunity from prosecution for their actions during the arrest unless body cam footage is recorded.

We can stop this if we're smart about it.

Let’s build a wall too.

You sound scared it might actually happen. I think I've hit a nerve.

Why don't we already have this?

All ICE agents must have body cams recording and uploading via 5G.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All ICE agents must have body cams recording and uploading via 5G.

We’ll have a new president in office before the bid goes out. It’s probably a 5+ year process start to finish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All ICE agents must have body cams recording and uploading via 5G.

We’ll have a new president in office before the bid goes out. It’s probably a 5+ year process start to finish.

Stop obeying in advance.

Having all ICE agents wear body cams and recording is something that would have broad support among all voters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Democratic politicians need to submit a new law that all federal police need to have body cams recording and uploading via 5G during any operations.
It would have broad support among both republicans and democrat voters.

Body cams aren’t like ring doorbells. You can’t just order them from Amazon. There’s a long and drawn out research and bid process.

Let's get it started, Congress people! These jackboots are never going to identify themselves or show their faces. So pass a bill that requires body cams ON during any abduction, I mean arrest. Then give it teeth by removing any immunity from prosecution for their actions during the arrest unless body cam footage is recorded.

We can stop this if we're smart about it.

Let’s build a wall too.

You sound scared it might actually happen. I think I've hit a nerve.

Why don't we already have this?

All ICE agents must have body cams recording and uploading via 5G.

DP. Those guys were Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) employees and someone showed up later said they were ICE. So making ICE wear body camera is a start but federal law enforcement is huge. Remember there are a lot of private contractors and agencies without the power to arrest. This is why they mask up and do not show identification.

Without the authority to arrest they are subject to kidnapping, assault and impersonating a law officer charges. If Trump is out of office these guy you see on the streets now are going to prison.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Democratic politicians need to submit a new law that all federal police need to have body cams recording and uploading via 5G during any operations.
It would have broad support among both republicans and democrat voters.

Body cams aren’t like ring doorbells. You can’t just order them from Amazon. There’s a long and drawn out research and bid process.

Let's get it started, Congress people! These jackboots are never going to identify themselves or show their faces. So pass a bill that requires body cams ON during any abduction, I mean arrest. Then give it teeth by removing any immunity from prosecution for their actions during the arrest unless body cam footage is recorded.

We can stop this if we're smart about it.

Let’s build a wall too.

You sound scared it might actually happen. I think I've hit a nerve.

Why don't we already have this?

All ICE agents must have body cams recording and uploading via 5G.

DP. Those guys were Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) employees and someone showed up later said they were ICE. So making ICE wear body camera is a start but federal law enforcement is huge. Remember there are a lot of private contractors and agencies without the power to arrest. This is why they mask up and do not show identification.

Without the authority to arrest they are subject to kidnapping, assault and impersonating a law officer charges. If Trump is out of office these guy you see on the streets now are going to prison.

Seems like a no brainer to me. And the dem talking point should be - why aren't ICE already wearing body cams like all other police?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All ICE agents must have body cams recording and uploading via 5G.

We’ll have a new president in office before the bid goes out. It’s probably a 5+ year process start to finish.

Stop obeying in advance.

Having all ICE agents wear body cams and recording is something that would have broad support among all voters.

Read this.

https://www.politico.com/sponsored/2024/06/body-worn-cameras-build-transparency-and-trust-for-law-enforcement-across-the-nation/#:~:text=As%20of%202020%2C%20all%20U.S.,in%20departments%20with%20BWC%20programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They punched him in the head/face, why? I work for an acute care hospital and our security can detain patients withdrawing better than this (and would actually be fired for this use of force).

We have such a ridiculous acceptance of completely unnecessary use of force.

They refuse to identify themselves. They are a bunch of brownshirt thugs enforcing political obedience to Trump.

Typical bullies and cowards.

[Anonymous]

Former federal prosecutor married to a DOJ LEO here. I’m 99% sure they’re Bureau of Prisons employees. Everything I can see on that video suggests BOP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Former federal prosecutor married to a DOJ LEO here. I’m 99% sure they’re Bureau of Prisons employees. Everything I can see on that video suggests BOP.

So why would BOP be going after this delivery driver? What is possibly the motivation for this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What was he “delivering”? A bomb or something?

Was he working for Amazon, UPS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That depends.

• If a bystander directly asks an officer for their name, badge number, or agency, many departments require the officer to provide that information, unless doing so would interfere with safety or an active investigation.
• If you are affected by their actions (e.g., you’re ordered to move, kept behind a police line, or your property is involved), then the officer should identify themselves or provide a way to know who gave the order (like badge or unit markings).
• Some jurisdictions (like New York City, Illinois, California, etc.) have “Right to Know” laws or ordinances that explicitly require officers to identify themselves when interacting with the public, even if you’re not a suspect.

Please link to the policy or law that requires ICE to identify themselves to random onlookers. I’ll wait.

That’s not what the PP said. You can go back to read it.

Some jurisdictions can require it, and that poster said that no law enforcement is required to do so, which is clearly wrong. Under some circumstances law enforcement must.

So, that should change if that doesn’t include ICE. States can require it.

However, in the meantime, whatever happens to agents in “the field,” they brought upon themselves by choosing to remain anonymous. No one wants to hear their whining about increased assaults.

Can you link to the NYC law that requires NYPD to identify themselves to onlookers?

Do you people have like limited data on your internet plans?

https://www.nyc.gov/site/ccrb/complaints/file-a-complaint/right-to-know-act.page

That requires identification to individuals pursuant to a law enforcement action. It doesn’t apply to rubberneckers.

I have already spent too much time on a person that I knew to be willfully ignorant. If you can’t read or refuse to read, it’s on you.

Everyone else probably can on their own without so much handholding.

You are wrong.

Big surprise.

You’re wrong. You want to be right. Law enforcement isn’t required to identify to agitated onlookers. What you linked confirms that. I’m sorry you didn’t read it carefully before you tried to spike the football.

Lmao, ok, I see your game.

Like I said. Everyone can read and research. You are 100% wrong.

From your link:

NYPD officers must identify themselves to civilians by providing their name, rank, command, and shield number the beginning of certain interactions.

Under the Right to Know Act, civilians may always ask an officer for this business card. However, officers are only required to offer the card in certain circumstances, such as during a frisk, searches of your person, property, vehicle, or home, or at sobriety checkpoints.

Rondos filming with phones don’t count my friend.

np: Whatever the law, in a functioning democracy, there is no reason LEO wouldn't be unmasked and his agency clear on his uniform. Citizens are the employer, not the enemy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Former federal prosecutor married to a DOJ LEO here. I’m 99% sure they’re Bureau of Prisons employees. Everything I can see on that video suggests BOP.

So why would BOP be going after this delivery driver? What is possibly the motivation for this?

BOP doesn’t normally enforce the law outside of federal prisons. But they’re technically law enforcement, so they’ve been “activated” as part of this law enforcement surge. I don’t think BOP had a particular interest in this guy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That depends.

• If a bystander directly asks an officer for their name, badge number, or agency, many departments require the officer to provide that information, unless doing so would interfere with safety or an active investigation.
• If you are affected by their actions (e.g., you’re ordered to move, kept behind a police line, or your property is involved), then the officer should identify themselves or provide a way to know who gave the order (like badge or unit markings).
• Some jurisdictions (like New York City, Illinois, California, etc.) have “Right to Know” laws or ordinances that explicitly require officers to identify themselves when interacting with the public, even if you’re not a suspect.

Please link to the policy or law that requires ICE to identify themselves to random onlookers. I’ll wait.

That’s not what the PP said. You can go back to read it.

Some jurisdictions can require it, and that poster said that no law enforcement is required to do so, which is clearly wrong. Under some circumstances law enforcement must.

So, that should change if that doesn’t include ICE. States can require it.

However, in the meantime, whatever happens to agents in “the field,” they brought upon themselves by choosing to remain anonymous. No one wants to hear their whining about increased assaults.

Can you link to the NYC law that requires NYPD to identify themselves to onlookers?

Do you people have like limited data on your internet plans?

https://www.nyc.gov/site/ccrb/complaints/file-a-complaint/right-to-know-act.page

That requires identification to individuals pursuant to a law enforcement action. It doesn’t apply to rubberneckers.

DP: Without ID, the citizens believe they are helping prevent a crime because it appears there is a crime occurring. This is part of why officers must have clear ID. It's for their own protection too.