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

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:• 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.

Anonymous wrote: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

Now link the CA law that requires law enforcement to identify themselves to onlookers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why aren’t they going after MS-13? Like I genuinely want them to roll up on some gang members and try to arrest them


Isn't it weird how everyone will know who the drug dealers/gang members are or which are the drug houses except for law enforcement?

This is the correct answer. When they're ignoring the drug dealers/gang members, you know they don't have the guts to go after those guys. Those guys WILL find a way to retaliate, and the ICE folks know it.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

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

Shoot them? With what guns?

There are many, many guns. Also, DC just expedited the process for handguns. Long guns are easy everywhere. Of course, in an hypothetical urban combat situation you get home field advantage. The clowns eventually have to eat, go to the bathroom, sleep. They need water, food, gas.

They need logistics. The poor troops out in California were left with nothing.

You can go to war with the American people, but it won’t go well.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

Also, you smell like a failed cop boot licker. Is that it? Are you one of those back the blue ball washers?

[Anonymous]

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.

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

The US military is not prepared for a drone war similar to Ukraine. Every day Trump and his hate filled supporters move us close to civil war.

Shoot them? With what guns?

There are many, many guns. Also, DC just expedited the process for handguns. Long guns are easy everywhere. Of course, in an hypothetical urban combat situation you get home field advantage. The clowns eventually have to eat, go to the bathroom, sleep. They need water, food, gas.

They need logistics. The poor troops out in California were left with nothing.

You can go to war with the American people, but it won’t go well.

[Anonymous]

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.

Also, you smell like a failed cop boot licker. Is that it? Are you one of those back the blue ball washers?

Still wrong homey.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't the public intervene? They are unmarked, badgeless strangers. We should all intervene.

Liar. You see “POLICE” on their uniforms.

Please learn how to read. The previous poster said unmarked and badgeless. I can get a shirt that says POLICE at a costume shop, so that alone means nothing at all.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't the public intervene? They are unmarked, badgeless strangers. We should all intervene.

Liar. You see “POLICE” on their uniforms.

Please learn how to read. The previous poster said unmarked and badgeless. I can get a shirt that says POLICE at a costume shop, so that alone means nothing at all.

You can buy badges online too.