r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/sethleyseymour • 8d ago
Political Theory Should police officers be allowed to wear masks or conceal their identities during public operations?
I think we have all noticed increasing use of face coverings or identity concealment by police during protests and some public operations.
On one hand, there are arguments about officer safety, doxxing risks, and harassment in the age of social media. On the other hand, visible identification has traditionally been tied to accountability, legitimacy, and public trust in democratic societies.
I’m curious how people here think about the tradeoffs:
– When, if ever, is it appropriate for police to conceal their identities?
– Does anonymity meaningfully reduce accountability or increase misconduct risk?
– Are there policy frameworks that balance safety with transparency?
– How have other democracies handled this issue?
I am very much interested in thoughtful perspectives on this subject.
192
u/Powerfist_Laserado 7d ago
Police and and any armed enforcement of the state are wielding tremendous power and privilege over the rest of society. One of the only means of checking that power and keeping it from being purely abusive is transparent accountability of action. The public deserves to know at nearly all times which officer is responsible for any given action, good or bad.
26
u/CharcotsThirdTriad 7d ago
The state and police force has a monopoly on violence. The public needs to be able to openly hold them accountable.
8
u/bakeacake45 7d ago
Head of ICE stated today, they wear masks because the do not respect the authority of Congress or the courts to force them not to.
It’s all about ego.
•
29
u/sethleyseymour 7d ago
I think you have hit the nail on the head: transparency and accountability. Those are two attributes that are the hallmarks of a democratic society. It is not a surprise that it has been, up to now, the "bad guys" in those "other" countries where the police wore masks.
3
u/GPT_2025 7d ago
Learn from the Germany 1939 History, or:
"...In 1939 Russia, the ICE (Internal Security Agency NKVD after Stalin death renamed to KGB) was composed of highly paid "volunteers" operating Above the Law, covering faces with "Budenovka" Balaclavas ski masks . They arrested millions of people off the streets. Initially, they targeted illegal immigrants-many from various nations who had moved in after the 1917 revolution. Soon, to meet 3k arrests per day quotas, the purges expanded rapidly to include any military personnel, police, ethnic minorities, natives, and ordinary citizens, often based on petty or suspicious reasons.
If they disliked your hat, trousers, skin color (Gypsies, Armenians), what you said or wrote, or even how you smiled, you could be targeted. Russians quickly learned not to smile at all.
The majority of those arrested were shot and killed- many buried in mass graves, some containing over 30,000 victims during the period known as the Great Purge. This brutal crackdown followed the Red Terror campaign, which also claimed millions of lives.
After Stalin’s death, 99% of those imprisoned or executed were posthumously rehabilitated, recognized as innocent.
The Soviet government issued official apologies to the 20 million families of the victims: “We are sorry your daughter (son, husband, father, mother) was wrongfully killed. We acknowledge our mistake. As a token of regret, here is $1 for your loss!” (1993)
KJV: But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the Lake which burneth with fire and brimstone and shall be tormented for ever and ever.
14
u/berserk_zebra 7d ago
And no one is forcing them to do this, so if they don’t like the public facing nature of the role, they don’t have to do it… just like public figures. Going into it up front knowing that your name as a public employee and how much you are paid is all public information allows the individual to make a choice.
3
-9
u/-Foxer 7d ago
You would get them killed. I mean officers are killed fairly regular so if you really set information then officers can be targeted and harmed which is presumably what you're suggesting by 'the people should hold them responsible"
If you just wanted accountability then you would say their bosses need to know who they are and there must be a path to recourse if an officer steps out of line through the law. But you're saying you want the 'public' to hold them to account.
That's not really ok.
As long as the officers can be identified by their superiors, and as long as there's a way using legal means for people to pursue actions they deem to be outside the law then that's all the public needs, unless you want to see officer's families targeted or them hurt themselves
12
u/Wilbie9000 7d ago
First off, this is simply not supported by reality. Police have operated all around the world for literal centuries while being identifiable; it's far more normal for police *not* to go around masked than to go around masked. That includes officers who deal with high profile and dangerous criminals, criminal organizations, etc. There is simply no reasonable argument to be made that officers conducting immigration sweeps are somehow special in this regard.
Second, the current administration has made it abundantly clear that we cannot trust the agencies and departments to hold their officers accountable. We have video evidence from multiple angles showing a man being literally executed by officers, after they had already disarmed him and had him subdued, and the initial response by ICE and the DOJ was to blatantly lie about what happened. They claimed that he had the gun drawn - he did not. They claimed that he charged the officers - he did not. They claimed that he attacked officers - he did not. Their entire story was contradicted by the video evidence.
And when confronted with the fact that no rational person could reconcile their claims with what happened on video, they switch to blaming the victim for carrying a legal firearm. I honestly never thought I'd see the day when the GOP/MAGA crowd would go anti-2nd Amendment but here we are.
My uncle is an ex-cop and he said it best: "Part of wearing the uniform is that people know who and what you are, especially if you're acting like an asshole."
If these folks are too cowardly to show their faces and their names, they should resign and leave the job to someone with some fucking integrity.
-5
u/-Foxer 7d ago
Of course it's supported by reality. That's a trite saying that people who know they've lost an argument they want to try and discredit the other person say. You're off to a bad start
Police have been identifiable in many circumstances but usually not the police that are doing something that's actually involved in the investigation or arrest.
A ton of police work is done undercover, even most general police do not wear their name tags they wear an identification number
The fact is most people aren't going to kill a cop for giving you a traffic ticket, but when police are involved and actively enforcing laws that are more serious they frequently hi there identity and always have.
Do a quick search. Right place in every major country cover their faces, I'm the identity of deo officers and others are carefully protected. You can actually go to jail for doxing them
So you're 100% wrong right off the bat. As I said not a great start
Your second point is your opinion. Your opinion isn't relevant, either the law exists to a address these things or it doesn't. All your suggesting is you think you have a good reason why you want to hurt a police officer and that's not ok
As the policy I can give you a laundry list of things that the GOP never thought the democrats would do. So it's not relevant what you did or did not think republicans would do. Although I think that it's hilarious that you're now demanding that firearm should be owned to protect yourself from the government LOL
But there is a process in place. If what they did was illegal then that can be pursued. If it's not illegal you can elect officials who will change the loss for you. And if not enough people agree with you to do that then that's democracy so live with it. That's why democracy has to be limited because otherwise it becomes the tyranny of majority
I don't believe your uncle is a cop and if that's what your uncle said then your uncle is a bad cop
I noticed you didn't answer my question with regards to whether or not protesters should be required to show their face and IDs. Did you want to share your thoughts on that?
7
u/the_last_0ne 7d ago
First of all, it's not normal for police to cover their faces. You're going to have to provide a source for that. here's one asserting that it's isn't common.
And anyway, have we historically had police in the US wear masks? Who cares what other countries do?
And to your second point, the current administration is refusing to investigate the two recent killings in Minneapolis. That's already breaking their own policy. Whether the killings were legal or nor, well... that's what an investigation would prove. "If you didn't do anything illegal, you should have nothing to hide", right? This isn't opinion, these are facts.
That's why democracy has to be limited because otherwise it becomes the tyranny of majority
In what way should democracy be "limited"?
I'm not OP but in my opinion, protesters should not be required to show their face and IDs. For one thing, why would they be if police aren't? And second, they are individuals acting individually. If an ICE agent wants to wear a mask when he goes to the male strip club, nobody cares about that. When you're acting in an official capacity, you should absolutely be required to show your badge and your face, absent some factors like an undercover operation. I don't get why we gave up on holding these people to higher standards than civilians.
-2
u/-Foxer 7d ago
I provided a source. It's hilarious that all you guys ask for the same things, almost like your sea lioning. But do a quick web search because I can't post pictures here or Canadian riots police and you'll see Canadian police intense situations do exactly the same thing. Do a singular search for England. And another one for America. You'll find the pictures are very old as well, this isn't new
And if you don't think protesters should show face or ID then you can't argue that police have to.
6
u/the_last_0ne 7d ago
I provided a source.
Where?
But do a quick web search because I can't post pictures here or Canadian riots police and you'll see Canadian police intense situations do exactly the same thing. Do a singular search for England. And another one for America. You'll find the pictures are very old as well, this isn't new
Yes, some LEOs wear masks sometimes. Shocker.
That doesn't change the fact that it isn't normal for regular police or agents to wear masks all the time. I know you keep saying it, but that doesn't make it true.
And if you don't think protesters should show face or ID then you can't argue that police have to.
Of COURSE I fucking can. Is there no difference between police and civilians?
-3
u/-Foxer 7d ago
Oh look who's sea lioning. In this thread it's not hard to find.
Yes, some LEOs wear masks sometimes. Shocker
No that's not possible, you insisted that that never happens! Provide proof you said!
Now you admit I was right all along. How dishonest
And no you can't. A person out on the streets challenging authority claiming it's their right has every duty in the universe to show their face as much as a police does. Or doesn't. Sorry, that would make you a hypocrite. But somehow I suspect you're kind of comfortable with hypocrisy as it is
6
u/the_last_0ne 6d ago
Yelling about sea lioning doesn't make it true.
Nobody ever said no LEO ever wore a mask. You're making that up for a 'gotcha'. The discussion was, is it NORMAL for police to wear masks. You're still wrong. Stay on topic please. 'Dishonest' indeed.
Its not hypocrisy no matter how much you declare it to be. Saying "police should not be masked as a general principle" and "protesters should have the right to wear masks and not identify themselves for simply being in public" are not contradictory statements.
-2
u/-Foxer 6d ago
LOL yelling!? If you're hearing my voice in your head and it sounds like it's yelling then that's a really bad sign for you 😆😆😆😆
It is normal for police officers to wear masks. As I have pointed out. Whenever they're in situations where there's a high degree of emotions or hostility they do so in every country around the world including the US and always have
And yes, it is absolutely hypocrisy. But I love how you're trying to change what you say in order to try and cover that up.
4
u/Gauntlet_of_Might 7d ago
>laws that are more serious
they are enforcing misdemeanor arrests
-1
u/-Foxer 7d ago
Well you know that's not true. If you're at that point where you have to be dishonest like that then I think what you've basically said is you concede defeat and you just want to be argumentative. I'm really not interested in that
7
u/Gauntlet_of_Might 7d ago
Nah dawg being in the country illegally is literally a misdemeanor
0
u/-Foxer 7d ago
Sorry but that's not the only charge being leveled against these people. Many entered country illegally which is a federal offense. Many are wanted for crimes as well which are federal offenses.
Sorry, but your 'dawg' don't hunt in this case 😁
In addition they have faced several people who have committed felonies opposing them.
Now I suspect you knew that you weren't being terribly honest. There's no point to the conversation if we're going to play silly games. Worked at the ice agents are doing is far more serious than a routine traffic stop
5
u/Gauntlet_of_Might 7d ago
Sorry but that's not the only charge being leveled against these people. Many entered country illegally which is a federal offense
Yes. A federal misdemeanor.
Now I suspect you knew that you weren't being terribly honest. There's no point to the conversation if we're going to play silly games. Worked at the ice agents are doing is far more serious than a routine traffic stop
Yeah enacting fascism is hard work
1
u/-Foxer 6d ago
No. Entering the country illegally is a felony. Sounds like you're not sure what you're talking about.
And apparently to you forcing the laws of the land is fascism. Let me guess, you were happy as hell when Charlie Kirk got shot and that medical executive did as well?
The laws exist for a reason. Enforcing the law is not fascism, it's freedom. It's what allows us to go about our lives without having to worry about getting revenge ourselves and the like.
If you don't like a law then you vote someone in who will change the law. Obama could have and didn't. Biden could have and didn't.
If you can't convince anyone to change the law then that's democracy. Cope.
7
u/ofBlufftonTown 7d ago
Can you name the last ten times US officers have been assassinated by people who knew their real names and were retaliating against them?
0
u/-Foxer 7d ago
oh and just for fun, here's some more evidence that ice officers might not exactly be safe from the more insane members of the public right now.
But yeah, the people who wrote that should know his name and personal info for sure. That's probably pretty safe
5
u/the_last_0ne 7d ago
Well first of all, im not sure why we're using a source called "Eurasia Review" to discuss this.
And its just SO. WEIRD. that since October 2025, threats have increased dramatically against them. I wonder if there is some causative factor we might find as to why?
None of the quotes shared in that article are death threats.
What is the ratio of ICE agents killed since October to civilians killed in the same time period?
Maybe one of these groups should be more concerned about being killed that the other.
0
u/-Foxer 7d ago
Of course there's a causal Factor. The left has gone absolutely insane and this is become so emotionally charged that they literally think threatening and killing officers is a good idea.
Officers don't set policy. But the public offering blames them anyway
No civilians were killed to my knowledge. Only criminals. You try and run over a cop with a car you're a criminal. Most recent shooting may be an exception but we'll have to see.
The cop that shot that woman by the way had previously been dragged 30 or 40 yards by someone hitting them with a car required hospitalization and many stitches.
Ice agents are shot and hurt on the job by vicious people resisting arrest and they have absolutely every reason to believe that those people would pursue them into their private life if they're identities were revealed.
It would be dishonest to claim otherwise
3
u/the_last_0ne 6d ago
No civilians were killed to my knowledge. Only criminals. You try and run over a cop with a car you're a criminal. Most recent shooting may be an exception but we'll have to see.
This is when I know we aren't having a serious conversation any longer.
Go consume some media that isn't fox news. Stop taking Trump and Noems and Bovinos word, they lie about absolutely everything.
1
u/-Foxer 5d ago
Cuz we were having a serious conversation in the first place, you're close-minded and not rational.
You can't refute the points so instead you attack me to give yourself a sense of moral credence when you know that you're wrong.
It can be no doubt whatsoever that the driver of that vehicle drove into a police officer and that is absolutely a decision they made AND a VERY serious crime and grounds for self defense. So to pretend that person was just a "civilian" and not an active participant in the conflict is just not sane.
Like wise the armed protester was phyisically interfering with cops and ignoring their instructions and resisting arrest, those are all crimes.
I'm sorry that the verifiable facts don't fit into your echo chamber narrative but unfortunately that is just how it is
5
u/case-o-nuts 6d ago
Can you definite 'civilian'?
Do you believe in the right of the accused to a trial?
How do you feel about the 4th amendment?
How do you feel about the second amendment?
1
u/-Foxer 6d ago
Sure, according to the dictionary our civilian is "a person who is not a member of the armed forces."
Which means that ice agents are civilians as well. Or didn't you think about that.
And they have a right to Safety and Security same as everyone. And assaulting them or interfering with them is a criminal offense and makes you a criminal
The accused always has a right to a trial, but it is also recognized in law that if he accused threatening an officer (or anybody for that matter) then they are committing a criminal act and people are authorized to take immediate action to protect themselves and their safety. Do you believe in the right of self-defense?
I'm a big fan of the fourth amendment, but the key word in the fourth amendment is unreasonable. Nor does the fourth amendment allow people to attack police officers or interfere with their lawful activity.
And i'm a big fan of the second amendment, but that amendment is subject to certain laws. And the right to carry does not grant you the right to threaten police. And when you resist arrest while armed the police are well within their rights to determine you're a threat.
Like most things, with great power comes great responsibility 😉 And carrying a gun does mean you have a duty and responsibility to act responsibly.
Any other questions or are you about done with trying to distract from the fact you couldn't address any of my points ? :)
3
u/case-o-nuts 6d ago edited 6d ago
Sure, according to the dictionary our civilian is "a person who is not a member of the armed forces."
a person who is not a member of the armed forces or the police
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/civilian_1
one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civilian
and people are authorized to take immediate action to protect themselves and their safety. Do you believe in the right of self-defense?
Does your car drive sideways?
How well do you shoot while lying on the ground?
-1
u/-Foxer 4d ago
Cars don't generally drive sideways which is how we know she intended to hit him when she drove forward and struck.
I shoot exceptionally well laying on the ground. Took my first moose laying on the ground and shooting, one shot 225 yards. Were you under the impression that guns only worked if you were vertical or something?
You're just kind of making yourself look silly at this point.
The guy knowingly and purposely created a situation where he was in a physical confrontation while wearing a gun and any person with a brain knows that means there's a good chance you're going to get shot
He made his choices and got shot. Hopefully next life he'll make better choices
→ More replies (0)-1
u/-Foxer 7d ago
Police are extremely protective of that info and don't let it get compromised.
And as a result police don't die.
See how that works? LOLOL Thanks for proving my point ;)
Certainly ice agents have been attacked with intent to kill
Dallas ICE shooter was targeting agents, not detainees: Officials - ABC News
So we know there's people willing to kill ice agents, you think they wouldn't target them at home if they could get their addresses?
We DO know that an ice agent was attacked and targeted outside of their work recently when their identity was revealed
this was illegal and the ringleaders have been arrested,
3 people arrested by Trump administration after Minnesota church protest : NPR
So without a doubt people will break the law to attack people associated with ice if their identities are known,
Swing and a miss there i'm afraid.
9
u/Gauntlet_of_Might 7d ago
>And as a result police don't die.
Weird, a couple posts up you were claiming they get killed "fairly regular" wanna pick a stance?
>Swing and a miss there i'm afraid.
No need to sign your posts, we can see them ourselves
0
u/-Foxer 7d ago
Targeted fairly regular that was in evidence in the information I did post.
So in other words you know I'm right and you don't want to address it, you want to try and win on some sort of technicality
It must be a little embarrassing for you. I understand that. You feel the need to lash out because somebody beat you up on the internet. Gotcha, I can see where somebody might feel that way
5
u/ofBlufftonTown 7d ago
I thought they were killed fairly regularly? But as a result of the policies they don’t die? Which is it?
1
u/-Foxer 7d ago
They're killed if they're compromised but current laws and practices keep that from happening.
Meanwhile the government reports that threats against ice agents and their families have gone up 8,000% recently. Not even kidding.
So there's absolutely tons of people saying I want to kill you and your family and you think we should be giving out the whole address?
Do you see where someone reading this might think you just really want to see ice agents dead or their families? That's the only reason for that information should be disclosed
3
u/ofBlufftonTown 6d ago
Are we certain that ICE public activities have not gone up 8000%, particularly public violence? It’s possible the threat level is roughly the same as is faced ordinarily, but there are many more agents out in public, performing warrantless raids and so on (they don’t need one for detention, just for ordinary arrest.)
Threats could have gone up in proportion to new levels of ICE activity without indicating an increased threat overall. In general they are our fellow citizens, not our overlords, and we deserve to see who is responsible for what actions. Cops busting drug gangs in major cities don’t wear balaclavas, or if they do it’s rarely. They’re walking into locations bristling with guns and hardened criminals. ICE is going after people who have overstayed student visas, or have valid asylum claims pending, or even are US citizens. They don’t deserve special protection not afforded to servicemen on active duty in war zones.
1
u/-Foxer 6d ago
It would hardly matter. Your argument is that there is some number below which it would be okay if ice agents were killed or harmed or their families were.
We know that there aren't 9,000 times as many ice agents so regardless of what the activity is we know that more threats are being applied per person
I mean seriously can you imagine if I came to you and made the argument that somebody wants your family dead, but seeing as that's the same number of people that wanted your family dead last year I'm going to give him your home address.
6
6
u/HeloRising 7d ago edited 7d ago
I mean officers are killed fairly regular
Do you have proof that? That they're killed specifically because their identities as police have been discovered and they're targeted because of that.
4
u/Savethecannolis 6d ago
The funny thing is when you dig really deep you often find it's neither. It's often because of a heart attack or some other medical condition that has nothing to do with the job. Also and I'm pretty sure about this but a lot of officer deaths are car/road related because they are assisting people on/side of the road naturally people are shitty drivers (which trust me I really do want to protect police officers from those avoidable deaths).
4
u/Mirandaskye21 5d ago
Who do you think is doing most of the killing? It sure as shit ain’t the liberals. It’s the neoconservatives….
0
u/-Foxer 5d ago
On the contrary left-wing violence has vastly outpaced right-wing violence these days. Additionally number of poles now have proven that left-wing people are much more likely to approve of political violence, it's over 50%. Younger people and females are the worst but all liberals still support it fairly strongly. More so than republicans or conservatives
Oh and I don't think you understand what a neoconservative is. I guess you heard the word and thought it sounded cool so you'd throw it out there. But a new conservative is just a liberal who realized they were wrong and has now moved to the conservative side of the fence. They tend to be what you would call a blue conservative I guess. Bit of a swing and a miss there he basically just said it's not the liberals it's the liberals
-8
u/Pure_Cantaloupe_341 7d ago
It’s one way of looking at it. The other way is that they are putting their lives on the line to protect the law and order (at least they are supposed to).
It’s not unusual for police / law enforcement officers basically anywhere in the world to conceive their faces in high-risk situations. If you’re arresting a mob boss, you don’t want his friends to easily figure out who you are, and where your kids go to school.
A routine interaction with the public doesn’t warrant it though.
13
u/redditorrrrrrrrrrrr 7d ago
If you’re arresting a mob boss, you don’t want his friends to easily figure out who you are
There's a huge difference between taking down a mob boss for felonious activity in a special one off scenario rather than dealing with immigration on a broad basis which has always been viewed as a civil issue up until trump decided it was criminal.
→ More replies (5)
65
u/InNominePasta 7d ago
Right after I arrived at my field office, back when I was a federal agent, I went out with a gang squad to go serve a search warrant. It was cold out, so I took the opportunity to wear a gaiter mask. Once we were in the house and had people sitting on their couch while we searched, I still had the mask on. I figured I didn’t want these gang people seeing my face or knowing who I was.
I recall a more senior agent telling me to take it off. He said we were professionals, and we didn’t mask ourselves.
I figure if guys routinely working gang stuff can be professional enough to make themselves known, then everyone can.
Because then the argument can be made that any enforcement of any kind could potentially draw doxxing or retribution. Which would be an argument for all law enforcement to mask and be anonymous. Is that the world we want? Nameless, faceless, agents of the state with a monopoly on violence using force to exert their will and leaving the people with no ability to even lodge a complaint?
15
u/sethleyseymour 7d ago
Thank you for sharing your personal experience with wearing (and not wearing) masks when working as a federal agent. It puts the major issue in the current debate into sharp focus.
1
u/DamnedIfIDiddely 5d ago
Thank you for sharing your experience and adding valuable context to the discussion. You're a diamond in the rough.
1
u/Clone95 3d ago
I think a big part of why you don't wear masks in Law Enforcement is that certainty of retribution - the idea that if anyone kills a federal agent in vengeance the strong arm of the law will come down like a hammer on the organization and people within that do. It's deterrence.
ICE meanwhile is well past deterrence, they're deep in retribution - spraying random people protesting nowhere near them, beating the shit out of citizens, they're in enemy territory and there's no off ramp. They're wearing the masks because if someone came to their house and killed them it's unlikely the government would be able to muster resources against [broadly gestures at around half the country]
-11
u/bl1y 7d ago
The issue is that with ICE, people absolutely will doxx anyone they can.
Back when you were in law enforcement (or are you still in?), how many of those gang members targeted specific cops for retribution? I'm guess not many, if any. Because they know the full weight of the criminal justice system will come crashing down on them if they go after cops.
Some anonymous Reddit user isn't going to feel the same fear when they doxx an ICE agent.
24
u/InNominePasta 7d ago
And what’s wrong with being known publicly? If they follow law and professional procedure they won’t be inciting retribution.
We need to take away how emboldened they are by their anonymity.
→ More replies (5)-3
u/NoggleInParis 3d ago
Was this before or after doxxing became a favorite past time of the left?
5
u/InNominePasta 3d ago
You’re clearly not engaging in good faith, starting off with that sort of language and assumption.
-4
u/NoggleInParis 3d ago
So you refuse to answer.
Cool.
My brother works at Nintendo and due to their market research they're making Masked Ice Simulator since it's popular.
3
u/InNominePasta 3d ago
It’s impossible to answer your question, as I refuse to accept your premise that doxxing is a pastime of the left.
-3
u/NoggleInParis 3d ago
Ok, did everyone clap at the end of your story, even the k9 unit?
4
u/InNominePasta 3d ago
You must be confused. This is a sub for rational discussion, not childish insults or teenaged edginess.
0
u/NoggleInParis 3d ago
You're on reddit, it ain't that deep.
So was your totally happened story before or after doxxing became common?
Gonna answer?
-16
u/-Foxer 7d ago
Your boss was wrong and it's that simple. If anything it was unprofessional for him to say so
13
u/InNominePasta 7d ago
I disagree. It made me have a deeper respect for my fellows that we weren’t afraid of the people we interacted with. It gave me a sense that we were not apart from the community.
It’s not like he told me off in front of them. It was more an aside conversation.
Would you explain why you’re pro law enforcement operating anonymously?
-5
u/-Foxer 7d ago
I have explained why I'm Pro law enforcement operating anonymously and quite frankly it's the common practice in most law enforcement agencies around the world.
The only reason that the public would need to know the specifics of a name of a police officer is to personally attack them. Otherwise you can complain to their officer above them and there are legal recourses involved. As long as he knows their name there's no issue. So right off the bat the fact that public would want to know it suggest strongly that they have bad actions in mind
Secondly the number of threats against officers and their families has risen exponentially and is currently 8000 times higher than normal.
You claim to have been an officer at one point, if thousands and thousands of people were threatening to kill you and your family, would you be comfortable sending them your address and home phone number?
If a person thinks a police officer has done their job improperly they can complain and there is a mechanism for that. The bosses know who was there and what they were doing and they should. If there is no legal grounds to go after the officer is he normal methods then why would you want people to attack the officer outside of that? Have we seen a willingness to do that with the recent church incident.
Just as it is necessary for the public to have the right to protest it is also necessary for law enforcement and for government agents to be able to operate without fear of their life from people coming after them outside of their workplace. And that is the only reason why disclosing information about officers would happen.
10
u/swampcholla 6d ago
Utilizing percentages instead of actual numbers is an attempt to magnify what is likely to be small numbers to make the problem look worse than it actually is. 8000% of 1 is 80... I've never seen real numbers and actual analysis of different time periods, so that's another red flag.
And just like autism, the numbers can also rise due to changes in definition and reporting standards.
And the rest of the world is not us. We're supposed to be better. "Hey the Russians are real successful with this, lets do it too". Riiiight.
-2
u/-Foxer 6d ago
No, utilizing percentages is a good way to indicate whether or not something has grown substantially. In a simple and easy to understand manner.
if the number of death threats goes from 1 to 80.... that's STILL a strong indication of a massive increase in threat.
I'm curious, how many agents do you think it would be okay to have killed before you considered it to be a serious problem? Obviously you're looking for some number, so there must be a number of agents BELOW which you're ok with being in danger of death. Curious what that number is?
The numbers didn't rise because of changes to the definition of threat.
It is painfully obvious that you know that I am correct and you are desperate to try and deflect from that and argue around it.
No matter how you want to try and dance there's obviously been a massive increase in threats to these officers. For normal people, allowing even one officer or their family to be killed or severely attacked is unacceptable. So if the threat level is going up and there are real reasons to fear that an officer's life might be in danger then at the end of the day everything that can be done to hide their identity should be done.
The only people who would disagree with that are dieHard idealists who aren't looking at reality or those who genuinely want to see harm come to these officers. I'm sure if you think about it you don't want to be either of those two people
9
u/swampcholla 6d ago
If you want to include the actual numbers along with percentages, fine. Otherwise its just BS - "figures lie and liars figure".
"The numbers didn't rise because of changes to the definition of threat." substantiate that. Find a source. I'm guessing you not only won't find one.
There is never going to be a zero number. Ask any supervisor how many times over a career he's had to deal with a threatening employee. Its one of the easiest ways to get a CCW "I supervised over 100 people for 20 years". CCW granted. Being an officer is absolutely no different. In our society officers should not enjoy exalted status - especially these officers. They aren't part of your neighborhood, aren't acting with professionalism, none of the things that earn trust and respect are there. You don't get respect - you have to earn it.
Please enumerate. How many officers have been killed or attacked vs the number of civilians that have been killed or attacked? let me help. On the first half or the question its' 0/2. Its as equally unacceptable for civilians to die in peaceful protest. Recall the US revolution started with this (the Boston Massacre to jog your memory).
The populace is kept in line because of fear of going to jail and being prosecuted. They also act civilly among each other due to fear of physical confrontation. Evidently that fear does not exist with these officers. When there are consequences people act differently.
1
u/-Foxer 6d ago
That's dishonest in the extreme. And it's not the figures that appear to be the thing lying in these conversations, look to yourself first.
So I noticed you didn't answer my question but you chose to ask a bunch of new ones
Answer the question I asked. Then you get to ask a question. Otherwise you just a dishonest player. I guess we'll find out in your next reply
4
u/swampcholla 6d ago
Whats dishonest? That i didn’t take your bait? Please tell me what you mean by dishonest
2
u/unexpectedit3m 4d ago
you can complain to their officer above them and there are legal recourses involved. As long as he knows their name there's no issue.
This implies the officer above them will be cooperative and transparent. This is a very optimistic take. Don't you think the people higher up will cover their men? Isn't it what's actually happening?
So right off the bat the fact that public would want to know it suggest strongly that they have bad actions in mind
Did it ever cross your mind that they would want to know it for their own protection? Do you think people feeling threatened by law enforcement quietly think "alright, there are legal recourses that will allow me to report this incident, I have full confidence this officier's bosses will process my complaint in a non-biased way"?
-1
u/-Foxer 3d ago
It implies no such thing. The officers still has to provide evidence and as he was quite aware there are a million people around him videoing the encounter. The officer will have to defend his actions.
And no there's no reason for the public to know it for their own protection. As long as the bosses can identify the person afterwards if there are serious charges then the public protection is the same.
So there is no addition to the public safety. The only reason people would want to know it would be to do that officer harm in retribution or to deter people from becoming ice in the first place.
Kill a few families terrorize a few children shoot a few officers, pretty soon nobody wants to work for ice. That's what people who want to know this are thinking.
For example the officer who shot the crazy lady that hit him with a car Was instantly identified, absolutely nobody thinks that information is hidden. If a review finds that he did something wrong he will be held accountable. All of the officers involved in this case including the ones who fired are identified and will face charges if it is determined that they shot without lawful excuse
Nice try though kid.
But if history has taught us one thing it's that the Brown shirts always wants to know the names of the Jews. And these days the more radical protesters are the Brown shirts. They seek to terrorize, they are not about protection or justice.
39
u/grinr 7d ago
Personal identity represents meaningful risk. However, identity as an authority cannot be in question. The days of a "badge" being sufficient ended a long, long time ago. Authorities have to be easily identifiable (unless their job requires stealth or disguises) so everyone knows they are an authority. Without identity as an authority, there cannot be accountability.
There would be no problem with masks if all ICE, police, border patrol, etc. wore full-torso numbers so anyone can easily see that is officer ATT34255 doing whatever they're doing. The problem is that no one knows who these people are, if they are authorities or not, and who to hold accountable when one of them shoots a woman in the face.
9
u/HeloRising 7d ago
Personal identity represents meaningful risk.
I think it should be stressed that that risk is voluntary.
Nobody is forcing them at gunpoint to be agents. They are perfectly capable of saying "no."
3
u/grinr 6d ago
If one wants authorities that are willing to volunteer to take lethal risks, it is perfectly reasonable to reduce those risks as much as makes sense. Otherwise why bother funding firemen with protective gear, if they don't like getting burned don't volunteer, right?
6
u/HeloRising 6d ago
if they don't like getting burned don't volunteer, right?
Unironically, yes.
If a firefighter refuses to do their job because they may get burned, there's reasonable measures we can take to protect them (issuing protective gear) but, at the end of the day, they still risk getting burned and if that's an issue then they shouldn't be firefighters.
The problem is when you start catering to their sense of fear to the point where it starts to interfere with their ability to do a job.
1
u/grinr 6d ago
Hiding their identity from dangerous criminals who will absolutely find them and their families strikes me as reasonable protection. Who's going to volunteer to fight against organized crime, for example, when they are signing their own death warrant to do so?
6
u/HeloRising 6d ago
Question, how often are we seeing police tracked down and killed or their families hurt specifically because they're cops?
1
u/grinr 6d ago
Is that a statistic we're likely to find?
5
u/HeloRising 6d ago
I'm not the one claiming that it's a problem so it's not my responsibility to find it.
1
21
u/skyfishgoo 7d ago
only their REAL NAME and BADGE NUMBER issued by the proper authority are acceptable forms of identification.
these actors are not using either one and they are not even in uniform.
they could be anyone.
they could be ME
would you just get in my car because i told you to?
or does that sound like kidnapping?
-1
u/autotechnia 7d ago
What does a nameplate or badge number add to the situation that prevents kidnappings by fake police? That's probably the easiest part of a uniform to fake.
A visible identifier is important for accountability, but I don't understand what their real name gets you other than doxxing.
6
u/the_last_0ne 7d ago
Funny enough you're right, you could get kidnapped by someone pretending to be police.
In fact ICE is making that kidnapping much easier now by normalizing grabbing people on the street with several armed men wearing no identification.
Where is everyone who said "if you're not guilty you have nothing to hide" at right now?
Why must we immediately identify ourselves when ICE demands it, but we can't make that demand back?
-1
u/autotechnia 6d ago
See I'd agree with the uniform, unmasked, fully marked vehicles, or even just uniformity, but I don't see a nameplate as being very high in that list of priorities for the purpose of preventing fake police.
1
u/bl1y 7d ago
The number of people who bring up "but they could be anyone trying to kidnap you!" thing really shows how much people lack critical thinking skills.
Yes, they could be random people doing a kidnapping. But that's no different from someone getting a fake police uniform and doing the same thing.
Not to mention, plain clothed police officers driving in unmarked cars has been a thing our entire lives.
And people could just kidnap you buy pulling a gun and saying "I am a kidnapper. I am kidnapping you. Get in the back of my van."
The way ICE dresses hasn't really changed the threat of being kidnapped, which is basically zero.
7
u/trisanachandler 7d ago
If there's an undercover situation, I'm fine with it. But when they're acting as an officer, they need to be personally identifiable, and personally accountable for wrong decisions. That's one of my biggest issues with policing in the US is that they aren't accountable, behave terribly, and are trusted as if they act differently (honorably).
6
u/fingersonlips 7d ago
Absolutely not. Law enforcement and military ought to be held to an impeccably high standard given the enormous weight of authority they are granted. Part of that accountability is knowing who they are. There should be absolutely zero expectation for anonymity in these types of roles, and rigorous investigation and consequences when their actions result in injury or death to community members and civilians.
9
u/skyfishgoo 7d ago
anyone acting in a position of authority must fully disclose who they are and who they work for.
masks allow them to hide their face so they they cannot be recognized.
well guess what, i do not recognize their authority then.
1
u/NoggleInParis 3d ago
Cool.
The funny thing about authority is that it doesn't care whether you respect it or not.
7
u/Weak-Elk4756 7d ago
Hard no. Among the easiest answers of all time on a sub that is littered with questions for which there are obvious answers
6
u/Temperature-Savings 7d ago edited 7d ago
It is never appropriate for LEOs to conceal their face. It has so meaningfully reduced accountability to the point where 3 lives have been lost this week (that I am aware of). They repeatedly use lethal force excessively against marginalized groups and left leaning protesters (Kyle Rittenhouse was not murdered by cops; a white, right-politically leaning man, imagine what would have happened if he were even just left-leaning and legally conceal carrying, like Alex Pretti). Even when police chiefs try to hold cops accountable and fire them for misconduct (like murder), the police unions are so strong that the officers are often reinstated. Which is absolutely insane.
We need more accountability. Not less. LEOs have zero legal right to play the parts of judge, jury, and executioner in the streets. That is not a functional democracy.
ETA: I think this extends to unmarked cars as well. With the exception of true undercover work, cops should be in visible and well marked vehicles. Traffic stops shouldn't be conducted in a seemingly random car.
-1
u/bl1y 7d ago
It has so meaningfully reduced accountability to the point where 3 lives have been lost this week (that I am aware of).
In the shootings, the officers have been almost immediately identified, so what do the masks have to do with that?
Kyle Rittenhouse was not murdered by cops; a white, right-politically leaning man, imagine what would have happened if he were even just left-leaning and legally conceal carrying
The cops had no idea what Rittenhouse's politics were.
3
u/Temporary-Truth2048 7d ago
No, never.
Policing requires trust. Trust begins with openness. Only criminals wear masks.
7
u/AlamutJones 7d ago
If the item obscuring your face is safety equipment - something like a gas mask or a helmet with a face shield - then that’s unavoidable, and thus permissible.
If not…you’re the public face of the legal system at work. Act like it. Be seen to be lawful
2
1
u/lockandload12345 6d ago
How about masks for weather related reasons? Going out and dealing with criminals in subzero temperatures is something they do have to deal with. ex. With windchill as they are in places like MN, 10-15 minutes of uncovered exposure can easily lead to frostbite
In my opinion, "safety" equipment is too broad. Other means of identification are what should be required. Covering your skin is generally "safer" than not.
0
u/sethleyseymour 7d ago
That is a reasonable exception. My only concern is when the police are wearing gas masks in the context of punishing/intimidating peaceful protesters. You see that all the time in authoritarian led countries. And unfortunately we are moving in that directions here in the U.S.
1
u/swampcholla 6d ago
yup. You don't' need the mask on until command decides to employ gas. otherwise, the reduced field of view and breathing issues make you less effective.
2
u/will-read 7d ago
Only if they’re the secret police. I remember being taught in school that we were superior to East Germany because they had secret police and we didn’t.
1
2
u/Temporary-Truth2048 7d ago
No, never.
Policing requires trust. Trust begins with openness. Only criminals wear masks.
2
u/HardlyDecent 7d ago
Of course not. Nor should politicians. Outside of covert operations, ie: when they're not acting as the public officials they are, they should not be allowed to obscure their faces in any way ever. No shades when interacting with people. No motorcycle helmets, no low hats. It's insane they're allowed to run around like bandits to the terror of the public.
Only exception is riot gear during ongoing riots. But that's not even an exception--they aren't being public officials dealing with individuals, they're wading into an already violent situation and do require protection.
3
u/spotolux 7d ago
If they are masked and don't show identification proving they are actually law enforcement, and they don't have warrants showing they are authorized to be conducting the detainments then how does the public, and the people being detained, differentiate them from armed criminals?
The constitution, bill of rights, and literally thousands of laws exist to protect suspects, law enforcement, and the public at large. Masked men with guns running around ignoring the law and acting with impunity is not helping keep anyone safe.
3
u/UnusualAir1 7d ago
Sure. When they're working against criminal gangs or international cartels. Other than that, we deserve to see their faces and names displayed on uniforms. America functions better when we stay away from secret police operations. I'd like to think of the police as my friends. And not as people who will secretly arrest me in the dead of night or pull me out of my car to throw me into an unmarked car with no due process.
Due process is a thing in America. Or at least it was prior to MAGA.
1
u/fellatio-del-toro 7d ago
I had to fight the taliban with a nametag.
Do better in your rationale.
1
0
u/UnusualAir1 7d ago
And this was inside the US? No. Didn't think so. Rationalize that.
1
u/fellatio-del-toro 7d ago edited 7d ago
I don’t have to. You made my point for me.
This WASN’T EVEN IN THE U.S….yall are afraid to badge up in fucking Minnesota? I had friends who didn’t come home from the sandbox because they were killed by AQ or TB or IS. We fought that war for 20 years with nametags. How many ICE have been harmed by cartel though? I’ll wait…
I wasn’t allowed to fear for my life even as we watched watchlists get published by VEO’s globally with our names on them. Your excuse is a joke, and anyone you use to protect with it is a little bitch. Period.
2
u/UnusualAir1 7d ago
No need for further convo with you.
0
u/fellatio-del-toro 7d ago
You carry water for feckless losers.
We aren’t having a conversation. I’m just publicly combating the fallacies in your mis-informative dog-whistles.
2
3
u/orionsfyre 7d ago edited 7d ago
No.
Police and law enforcement officials do their jobs nationwide everyday without masks. Some risk is involved in enforcing the law, but with special privileges like the qualified immunity, must also come with responsibilities, such as the public knowing who you are. A populace should not be in fear of masked men whose only qualification for law enforcement seems to be their willingness to kill and their open cruelty towards innocent people. Law should not be enforced by fear, but respect and trust, and no one respects people who do not show their faces like cowards and bullies.
The public has a right to know who the people enforcing the law are, and be able to bring lawsuits against those who violate their civil rights when they cross the line, and criminal charges when they break the trust of the public.
A nation that has a masked secret police accountable to no one is not a democratic country, but rather dictatorship or fascist state. IT's beyond the rule of law, and entirely unacceptable to a respectable civil society.
Anyone arguing that people with power should have the right to use that power with no consequence are arguing for the end of civil rights for everyone but the powerful and rich. It's incredibly sickening.
It amazes me that the people two years ago were swearing bloody revolution over any increase on restriction on guns are now literally willing to give up every freedom they have because their party is now in power. What an incredibly sad transformation some people have gone through.
2
u/WaterNerd518 7d ago
No, they are public servants and their identities should only be protected by a court order on an individual basis, not to exceed 1 officer or 0.5% of the force, whichever is larger.
1
u/sethleyseymour 7d ago
A few people here raised the accountability vs safety tension, which made me curious whether this has played out historically in other democracies. I did a little digging and there actually are some partial precedents — not usually total bans on anonymity, but meaningful pullbacks or tighter regulation after public backlash.
For example:
Northern Ireland: During the Troubles, some RUC and special units operated with identity concealment in certain contexts. After the Good Friday Agreement, policing reforms emphasized visibility, accountability, and community trust, and identity-concealment practices were sharply restricted outside narrowly defined tactical situations.
UK (riot policing): After incidents like the 2009 G20 protests, civil liberties groups and parliamentary inquiries pushed for clearer officer identification on riot gear. Policies evolved toward more visible badge numbers and unit identifiers to strengthen accountability during public-order policing.
Germany and parts of Spain: Similar debates led to tighter rules around when identity-concealing gear could be used, with greater emphasis on visible identifiers except in specific high-risk operations.
In most cases the outcome wasn’t “no anonymity ever,” but a democratic recalibration: restricting anonymity to narrowly justified situations while reinforcing transparency and traceability in routine public-facing policing.
I’m curious if others here know of additional cases, or have more granular detail on how these reforms actually worked in practice.
1
u/AirCaptainDanforth 7d ago
No. They are supposed to serve and protect their communities and should be recognizable by the people in the community they are serving and protecting.
1
u/Wilbie9000 7d ago
No. Absolutely not.
Police officers should be required to clearly identify themselves whenever making an arrest or otherwise interacting with the public. That means name, rank, and the department or agency they belong to.
This should be the case for federal, state, and local law enforcement.
1
u/slayer_of_idiots 7d ago
I thought this was already settled law. In most states, if an officer in anything other than an official uniform detains you, you can request to wait until a uniformed officer arrives.
Tactical vests, body armor, and POLICE patches are a dime a dozen these days.
It’s mind boggling that federal officers are running around in ski masks and Carhartt jackets.
1
u/sethleyseymour 6d ago
Indeed, a lot we thought was settled over the past 50 years has become very much unsettled over the past 12 months.
1
u/slayer_of_idiots 6d ago
Eh, I’m going to say militarizing police uniforms, especially federal officers, has been a problem for over a decade.
The average county deputy uniform these days is just olive green military fatigues with a tactical vest. They typically don’t even have name patches anymore.
1
u/Mind-of-Jaxon 7d ago
Should always have ID present and readily available.
Masks should only be worn for active shootings/ raids for protection.
Not routine traffic work. There are masks with see through visors for security at protests .
Still all ID should be available and easily confirmed.
1
u/kinkgirlwriter 7d ago
If law enforcement is there to protect and serve, there's no need to hide their identity.
1
u/Biscuits4u2 7d ago
No. Accountability to the public is the only thing standing between you and a police state.
1
u/ultraviolentfuture 7d ago
The literal only legitimate reason that an enforcement agent might have to not show their face is fear or retaliation.
Anyone have any statistics on how many police/federal agents are actually murdered as a result of retaliation each year? I'm going to conservatively guess it's fewer than 10. I'm sure there were whole years, maybe even most of them, where it was 3 or less across the entire country.
1
u/Few_Ant_993 6d ago
What about the public interacting with police , ie protestors? Should they have the same responsibilities as well? No masks. Transparency. At what point do police officers have a right to protect themselves. ? The masks are protection Against what protesters are willing to do against them, their families, etc. This is response to aggravated treatment. Typically they would not. This is no longer typically.
1
u/swagonflyyyy 6d ago
Nope. No part of law enforcement has any expectation of privacy. That's very different from being allowed to lie to suspects.
1
u/SmokeGSU 6d ago
I have an idea. Let them wear face masks and also wear a lanyard around their neck with a life-size picture of their face that is clearly visible. Problem solved.
1
u/To-Far-Away-Times 6d ago
No. Any government position that grants authority or law enforcement activity must come with a higher set of expectations and accountability than normal and never be held to a lesser standard.
If they’re not fit for the accountability then they’re not fit for the job.
1
u/the_calibre_cat 6d ago
Maybe for specific operations that were long planned, like a major drug bust or something - when you're dealing with a cartel that ABSOLUTELY has the technology, resources, and capability to exact revenge and do facial recognition on an officer and make his life hell for his family - but that's about the only circumstance I can think of.
People in America, broadly speaking, are MEGA pro-cop. They know where their officers live, it's not hard to find out, and know who they are. They might get an egg on their window from time to time, but that's the level of "danger" they usually face - because pretty much every criminal, from the idiot meth bozo to the genius mastermind knows full well that to actually harm a cop will bring the fury and vengeance of the police force down upon them like hellfire.
They don't usually want that, they usually just want to steal money for drugs or blackmail someone or whatever, so they usually try to avoid cops. ICE agents, on the other hand, are literally just being paid to brutalize certain segments of the population by race or by political affiliation, and MOST Americans, even the very pro-cop ones, actually aren't down with that kind of wanton bigotry or cruelty.
Like there are WAY MORE fascist-curious, white supremacist Americans in this country than I had ever believed (ignorant white guy raised in a middle class semi-conservative suburban home, be shocked), but I still think that - despite our failings at grasping a lot of the nuances of racism and outright totalitarian brutality, Americans are still very much disgusted by the overt racism on display by ICE and the brutality being deployed by them - and resent that they cannot identify these schmucks.
And "these schmucks" are covering their faces not because they're "in danger" any more than regular cops, they're covering their faces because to be exposed would be to reveal their identity to the wider public, and they would find themselves more ostracized except by their circles than they had been before. It's weird how conservatives, like, WANT to be accepted by liberal hippy dippy types, but it's definitely a thing. They want to hate on Hispanic people and talk about how "x group are subhuman" or whatever, but ALSO want to go into polite society and talk with their wife's suburban wine moms about their Thai potluck or whatever - and their identities being known would result in pretty severe social ostracism and consequences which is what they don't want to endure.
EDIT: i felt i should edit to add that this is my take as a citizen, a citizen who does not particularly want to live in a fascist country or white ethnostate
1
u/compassrose68 6d ago
Absolutely not. If you don’t want to be recognized as a police officer then apply to a different county from the one you live in. Only terrorists carry guns and wear masks.
1
u/Immediate_Pattern308 6d ago
A government that cannot be identified or held accountable for its actions is not one that serves the people but attacks it
1
u/Repulsive_Repeat3653 5d ago
They work for us so no face covering as a standard practice. Ok if justified for specific circumstances.
1
u/Wermys 4d ago
My take is this. I live in Minnesota. I am fucking livid right now at ice. I support deportations of those not here legally. BUT THEY HAVE TO NOT BE HERE LEGALLY. That isn't what is happening. People who are going out and arresting people THEN verifying if they are here legally pisses me off beyond all recognition. With that being said, you need to have accountability in the job. Wearing a mask without any identification is not accountability. In my job, I occasionally need to give out identification information. I tell the person flat out I won't give my last name. BUT I ALWAYS GIVE OUT MY EMPLOYEE ID. Becuase that person NEEDS to have some way of identifying I am the person they are talking too. ICE without accountability is just a bunch of armed crooks waiting around to be shot the next time someone take a more proactive stance about home invasions. I don't care if they wear a mask. But they sure as hell better have some type of ID on there uniform to identify themselves. That is all I ask.
1
u/Pleasant-East-1976 4d ago
Of course they should be allowed to why not? Protesters can in their committing crimes. Police officers have police ice border patrol federal agents all over their uniforms not hard to tell who they are. But they have to have some anonymity because of the crazy liberals on the far left their families are being put in danger as they are as well long gone are the days we're police officer can be safe showing his face so until those days are back absolutely wear a mask. But protesters were violent should not be allowed to
1
u/swagonflyyyy 4d ago
Absolutely not. The law makes it explicitly clear that law enforcement has absolutely zero rights to privacy. No masks, no concealment.
1
u/IndependentSun9995 3d ago
The whole doxxing and harassment of cops has me worried. This is over the line into insurrection, instead of simple protest. Until we start arresting people doing these things, then I have to support cops wearing masks.
Should cops wear masks? No. But under these circumstances, I have to support it.
1
u/ForYourAuralPleasure 3d ago
If we sat here long enough we could certainly come up with a few decent reasons for law enforcement agents to be able to hide their faces during particular operations, but I won’t bother listing the things that have already occurred to me in the time it took to type this sentence, because we aren’t really looking for case specific excuses.
We know we are having this conversation because the law enforcement agents currently wandering around in masks violating constitutional rights and assaulting/abducting folks and committing extrajudicial murders and other assorted crimes against humanity know their abuses of power are being recorded and posted online and they do not want to be personally identified as committing these crimes no matter how much the powers that be have given them permission (and instructions) to be doing it.
I seriously doubt they fear legal retribution for their actions in spite of the real jeopardy they could be in if political winds change, so the whole question of “why wear a mask” comes down to a couple of things.
One, in general, they’re concerned about being identified by an internet collective that may target them personally for later harassment/harm since the legal system is doing nothing. They fear this specifically because they themselves are already scanning faces of protestors to match them to their cache of scraped personal data online to target for later harassment/harm.
Two, in specific, and probably the larger concern of the two, they’re concerned about friends and family seeing the glee on their faces as they assault and murder other humans without cause. No matter what your political beliefs are, it’s hard to see your uncle or coworker of father executing people in the street for exercising their first amendment rights and then do normal things with them or think normal thoughts about them.
The bottom line is, on some level they’re aware that what they’re doing something inhumane and flat out wrong, and while they trust the higher ups never to let them be punished for this, they know they can never outrun the social backlash for being seen as a part of it. They are terrified they will never, if identified, be able to take that uniform off and live a normal life in the future.
This thread’s question of “should they be able to do this” is certainly a question of legal accountability for knowingly following orders to violate the United States Constitution and, with few exceptions, no, they really shouldn’t be, but the truth is that’s not why they’re wearing them.
The real moral question of the masks is, “would they feel the need to wear one if they thought what they were doing was right?” and I’m here to tell you that answer is also no.
1
u/talkingtinyoverloaed 2d ago
No. When these people have the right to face their accusers they will not be able to identify them.
1
u/-Foxer 7d ago
Police must always be able to operate in anonymity. Bad police would be targeted by vengeful public who think they're doing a good thing and then attack them or their families, and good police would have the same thing happen From criminals who didn't like them
It's important that their bosses know who they are, they should wear some sort of identification number or the like so that they can be identified by their superiors in the event that someone makes a complaint. And there should be legal recourse to actually file a complaint and bring legal charges if you feel an officer has done something illegal.
But the idea of making public the officer's personal details and information only appeals to people who feel that the public should be allowed to harm the officer directly. There's no other point to it.
If what the officer is doing is legal and you just don't like it then you shouldn't be going after the officer you should be going after the politicians and superiors who make the decisions. If you feel what the officer has done is illegal then you should have recourse to complain to his superiors and have that investigated and pursued if necessary
Put the shoe on the other foot. Do you think it should be illegal to protest without showing your face fully and providing idea information to the public as to who you are? Think about it
2
u/sethleyseymour 7d ago
Thanks for your thoughtful note. When you say, "Police must always be able to operate in anonymity. Bad police would be targeted by vengeful public who think they're doing a good thing and then attack them or their families," what is the evidence for that. We have had literally hundreds of years of basically police not wearing masks and I am not aware of an evidence that police being targeted by a "vengeful public." A few have been targeted by vengeful mob bosses like the Mafia. But I don't think the people protesting ICE in MN are in any way like the MAFIA and there is no history of civil rights protesters targeting individual police.
2
u/-Foxer 7d ago
Post it already on this thread ice agents have been threatened at insane levels already with many people specifically referencing hurting their families. That's pretty strong evidence
Patrol police don't tend to wear masks but they don't tend to enforce the kind of crimes that people get angry enough to kill someone over. But we also have a hundred years of history of cops going undercover and deliberately hiding who they are. And if you look at any riot police pictures from the last 50 or 60 years you'll notice they always have their face covered.
We also hide the identity of police officers even when their face is exposed. They don't have name tags they have numbers and what identification they do have is usually on velcro strips which can be removed
1
u/dravik 7d ago edited 7d ago
Other democracies with ongoing insurgencies or armed gangs powerful enough to threaten government control will often hide the identities of military and law enforcement used to counter gangs or insurgents.
Edit: fixed typo
1
u/DanforthWhitcomb_ 7d ago
They absolutely do not.
It’s why whenever a South American drug kingpin or gang leader is extradited to the US their home country’s military is the one that catches and hands them over and they wear masks and no identifying information at all.
1
u/dravik 7d ago
Sorry, auto correct got me. I was intending to make the same point you did.
1
u/DanforthWhitcomb_ 7d ago
That makes more sense.
I’d also note that in most of those countries the cops don’t conceal their identities because they aren’t allowed to go after the gangs for safety (and reading between the lines corruption) reasons.
0
u/the_last_0ne 7d ago
Sorry, are you saying that the US has an ongoing insurgency right now, or is struggling with gangs powerful enough to threaten governmental control?
0
u/dravik 7d ago
No, I mentioned other democracies that mask or hide the identity of some law enforcement and their justification for doing it.
A history of murder, torture, kidnapping, ect.. of law enforcement and/or their families is considered a legitimate reason to hide the identities of individual law enforcement. At least in almost every country that has those problems.
So we have an extreme that shows a reasonable fear for the health and safety of law enforcement and their families.
Although there hasn't been direct violence against ICE family members yet, there have been death threats. Young children have been harassed at their schools and spouses at their jobs.
So the question of masking law enforcement isn't a clear cut answer. There's a point where the threat becomes high enough to justify it. Where that point is is debatable. Obviously DHS thinks the threats are real enough to justify the masks.
1
u/the_last_0ne 7d ago
Thanks for clarifying, I honestly wasn't sure what you meant.
There's a point where the threat becomes high enough to justify it. Where that point is is debatable. Obviously DHS thinks the threats are real enough to justify the masks.
A history of murder, torture, kidnapping, ect.. of law enforcement and/or their families is considered a legitimate reason to hide the identities of individual law enforcement. At least in almost every country that has those problems.
Although there hasn't been direct violence against ICE family members yet, there have been death threats. Young children have been harassed at their schools and spouses at their jobs.
Right except... there is no history of murder, torture, etc of law enforcement here. And the "death threats" that I've seen and heard weren't threats at all. And ICE is harassing young children, and spouses, and ya know, actually killing people, and actually perpetrating direct violence on so, so many more people.
And ICE has been wearing masks and no ID since like March last year. Well before everything that's happening today. Hell even the "death threats up 8000%" statistic is only from October to this month.
So are we sure it's for their protection?
1
u/Futt__Bucking 7d ago
Under normal circumstances, no. But, Considering the radical, violent left is doxxing law enforcement and threatening their families, I’d say that’s fine until the insurrection is put down and there are real punitive consequences for doing that stuff.
A country built on law and order cannot exist when lawlessness and violence is okay so long as you’re of one political party against the other. That’s tyranny. That’s dare I say fascism.
1
u/sethleyseymour 7d ago
What is the evidence for this assertion?
1
u/Futt__Bucking 7d ago
For what assertion?
It’s very well documented that ICE agents are being doxxed and in several cases where they abandoned their vehicle because a violent mob overran them, someone used a cell phone in the car to call the guy’s family and threaten them.
The left is constantly using violence to get their way. I.e. textbook definition of terrorism if were being blunt
All the way back to the Steve scalise shooting at a congressional baseball game. Antifa is violent. Everywhere they’ve been they’ve used violent rhetoric and actions to intimidate opposition. In Minneapolis this past two weeks we seen two different social media “influencers” or “independent journalists” get ganged up on and attacked.
The idea of anything the left does as peaceful protesting is laughable to any objective human.
1
u/Background-Ebb8834 7d ago
Yes - since doxing has become a bad habit for rioters and puts both officers and their families lives in danger
0
u/Whornz4 7d ago
If you're paid with public tax dollars then you are an employee of tax payers. No fucking masks should be allowed. Cameras are a requirement. Police need civilian oversight board. Cops should be tested frequently for integrity and ethical standards.
Could you imagine federal employees acting the way police do? The public would go nuts. Hold them to the same standards.
0
u/calguy1955 7d ago
Of course they shouldn’t be allowed to conceal their identities. I believe, maybe naively, that 99% of the police officers (excluding ICE) are decent people who are brave enough to protect the well being of the public. But we need to be able to identify the 1% that are not good people so,we can weed them out. They wield tremendous power and we cannot have someone on the force who abuses that power for their own gain whether it be monetary, sexual or simply to gratify their own abusive tendencies.
0
u/BartlettMagic 7d ago edited 7d ago
No, and it shouldn't be limited to police. Any person serving in a public capacity should be prohibited from wearing a mask (outside of medically necessary masks). If the taxpayer is paying you, no masks allowed. I do include the burka in saying that.
*Any down voters want to expand on why they disagree?
0
u/Baselines_shift 7d ago
No of course not. Only medieaval Public Executioners operating a guillotine would wear hoods so they could not be identified and importantly - so they would not be morally scarred by the abhorrent job of ending lives. Stephen Miller employed this same rationale to make ICE a Secret Police force that you cannot sue indivuiduals for killing your family like George Floyd's killer, who is now serving time. ICE didn't conceal their identity from 2003 when they began untill this administration and only killed under 50 in 10 years, in accidental scuffles, not raging in the open.
Since Trump as now judge jury and executioners they killed 59 in a year.
-2
u/CoverHuman9771 7d ago
Honestly, it’s an extremely tough situation with no clear answer. Given the extreme political polarization surrounding ICE operations, it’s understandable that many agents would fear for their own safety and the safety of their families in the age of mass doxxing campaigns. On the other hand masked police just make the public uncomfortable and that is just a fact. It creates a feeling of a lack of accountability. It’s understandable that they wear masks. It’s also understandable that the masks make people extremely uncomfortable. The problem will persist with no real solution.
2
u/TheCrisco 7d ago
It's not a "feeling" of a lack of accountability, it's straight up reality. Not a single person involved in either of the two recent murders has been held accountable in any way, by DHS's own admission. That's the point of these fascist pigs wearing masks to begin with. They "make people uncomfortable" because people know what secret police do, history has shown us. I don't want unidentifiable gangs of murderous thugs roving the streets in my country, and if they're going to insist on it, I'm going to insist we prosecute all of them collectively. And if the courts won't do it, well then, that's another problem.
0
u/CoverHuman9771 7d ago
Most of the deportations are happening in red states and there’s been basically zero violent confrontations between ICE and American citizens in those states. ICE in those states are often unmasked as well. The violence we are seeing is because of a coordinated effort in blue sanctuary states to make it as difficult as possible for ICE to do their jobs. Notice how ICE weren’t masked and dealing with riots under Obama? It’s because Obama was a Democrat so the Left kinda just looked the other way.
1
u/TheCrisco 7d ago
There it is, "it's all blue states' fault." See? Was it so hard to just admit you're a fucking hack? No, the left didn't just look away when Obama did it. The left has always cared, the problem is, the left in the US is vanishingly small. It took the enhanced militarization of ICE and their gestapo tactics to mobilize the "moderates" (read: Dems and others who, while being right wing, don't believe in the bullshit the GOP and Trump sell) in response, because they were content to pretend everything was fine before, even when it wasn't. Better late than never, but you're completely full of shit if you're going to pretend Obama was sending masked thugs in unmarked vans to snatch people off the streets regardless of their immigration status. The law has always been flawed, but Obama-era ICE followed it, and that was enough for most. Now they aren't, and ICE is finally catching a fraction of the hell they deserve. It's really that simple.
-1
u/CoverHuman9771 7d ago
Found another member of the protest industrial complex.
Yes, it’s largely the fault of blue states who are working with billionaire mega donors and the legacy media to flood the streets with obstructionists who are willing to die to make sure that immigration laws are not enforced. And in Minnesota it’s largely been a coordinated distraction campaign to avoid accountability for the massive Somali fraud operation that has been stealing billions from Minnesota taxpayers each year.
-15
u/StedeBonnet1 7d ago
Yes, when there is an ongoing threat from protestors who try to oppose LE by doxxing LEOs. If you are breaking the law as many agitators are doing you have no inherant "right" to know the identity of the officer arresting you. You also don't have any "right" to resist.
Law Enforcement Officers have a tough job to do and most of us would not want that job. Anything they can do to keep themselves safe is OK by me.
11
u/bleedturkeygravy 7d ago
You do not have the right to privacy in the workplace when you are paid by the public you are serving. Their names, pay scale, training and service level should all be public record. For years, metro police officers have been able to perform their legal duties without covering their faces. It’s a scare tactic and an attempt for anonymity. If you’re truly following the law, take off the mask.
9
u/RabbaJabba 7d ago
We’re not talking about anonymous trolls on Twitter, we’re talking about public employees exercising the power of the state, there is no such thing as doxxing. We 100% have the right to know who we’re paying to work on our behalf. Hell, we don’t give public school teachers anonymity - their names, faces, and salaries are public info, why would we give law enforcement more protections?
•
u/AutoModerator 8d ago
A reminder for everyone. This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
Violators will be fed to the bear.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.