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

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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.
[/quote]

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

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.[/quote]

Can you link to the NYC law that requires NYPD to identify themselves to onlookers?[/quote]

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[/quote]

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

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

Lmao, ok, I see your game.

Like I said. Everyone can read and research.  You are 100% wrong.[/quote]

From your link:

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

Under the Right to Know Act, civilians may always ask an officer for this business card. [b]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. [/b]

Rondos filming with phones don’t count my friend.
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics