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

[Anonymous]

There are independent militia in DC posing as law enforcement and military. And the confusion of the present situation is enabling them to do with hat they want.

This is terrifying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are independent militia in DC posing as law enforcement and military. And the confusion of the present situation is enabling them to do with hat they want.

This is terrifying.

In California people were just showing up and following those clowns around in huge numbers, eventually forcing them to run away. Same will happen elsewhere. DC is just too small to have a critical mass everywhere.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are independent militia in DC posing as law enforcement and military. And the confusion of the present situation is enabling them to do with hat they want.

This is terrifying.

No mentally competent adult would believe this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great reminder to libs: start arming yourselves. Buy as many guns as the dumbest MAGA you ever met in your life.

+1

Trump already has plans to take guns away from the general population. Trump will deliver on gun control! Notice how many of the arrest are gun related? Busting down doors to take peoples’ guns away.

Not exactly. In fact, a Trump executive order actually streamlined the process for decent people in DC to lawfully obtain and carry firearms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are independent militia in DC posing as law enforcement and military. And the confusion of the present situation is enabling them to do with hat they want.

This is terrifying.

No mentally competent adult would believe this.

There is a whole thread about it under Politics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great reminder to libs: start arming yourselves. Buy as many guns as the dumbest MAGA you ever met in your life.

+1

Trump already has plans to take guns away from the general population. Trump will deliver on gun control! Notice how many of the arrest are gun related? Busting down doors to take peoples’ guns away.

Not exactly. In fact, a Trump executive order actually streamlined the process for decent people in DC to lawfully obtain and carry firearms.

I hope that people are able to protect themselves from masked unidentified kidnappers. This might not be the worst thing. If you are going to have awful laws, they apply to everyone.

[Anonymous]

This is truely scary that masked men fully armed are grabbing people off the street and aren't required to identify themselves. They should be criminally charged.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

I assume they knew where to get him because he had TPS and had previously registered and listed his employer?

That’s what’s especially sad here. They are grabbing the honest people who followed the rules, rather than getting the mS 13 folks who of course never registered with ICE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are independent militia in DC posing as law enforcement and military. And the confusion of the present situation is enabling them to do with hat they want.

This is terrifying.

Absolutely. You can tell by the really fat ones. These are the deputized second tier scum and definitely couldn’t pass the fitness test, even the minimal one for ICE.

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are independent militia in DC posing as law enforcement and military. And the confusion of the present situation is enabling them to do with hat they want.

This is terrifying.

No mentally competent adult would believe this.

There is a whole thread about it under Politics.

Well that certainly makes it true.

[Anonymous]

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.

If not required then people are within their right to assume illegal kidnapping and shoot them in self defense.