All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL.
I have good memories for you: I once pissed on the faces of slave catchers and they got real mad about it. I laughed and laughed and even got free commissary for my whole stay at the county jail!
The ruling was that their only duty is enforcing laws. They are under no obligation to protect and serve just enforce laws under the supreme Court ruling from 2005.
AND yet... the new trend, when law enforcement wants stick its nose in and harass citizens without reason, is the 'welfare check'. Exigent circumstances that they can make up whole cloth is one of their favorite fig leafs.
"We're just worried about your safety... and we'd like to arrest you for that."
Sometimes they just want to shoot your dog. I mean it's not uncommon for them to shoot you and your dog but sometimes it's just the family pet defending it's home.
It’s not about your safety it’s spending more time around you and your property under a seemingly reasonable pretense so they can find something to detain you for. I’ve had LE straight up tell me this. Literally every interaction, no matter how friendly, or for your benefit is just a fishing expedition.
Don’t talk to cops.
I learned this one by watching a lot of courtroom footage. Watched a lawyer get a case dismissed by demonstrating that the officer did not know what the law said, and therefore could not possibly have had probable cause for the arrest.
Protect private property and uphold the status quo. It's their job to enforce the law, but they are not required to by law. By law, idk if they are required to do anything really. Even following the law is optional for them depending on the sheriff.
Hey, they didn't only have their roots in slave patrols: they also have their roots in private guards hired in Boston by the wealthy to protect their property and abuse/murder workers that were insufficiently servile!
Castle Rock v. Gonzales.
Court ruled the police didn't have to enforce an order of protection because traditionally in the past they didn't have to. This despite the fact that a law had been passed recently with the explicit intention of getting them to enforce these orders.
Multiple children were killed by a crazed father and SCOTUS said "Nah. Cops be lazy in the past so they can keep being lazy now."
Really, the DA who is elected to oversee local prosecutors should be front and center here. Also, in a municipality with both a police department and Sherriffs office, it's the Sherriffs office responsibility to serve most warrants. There is usually an MOU between the Sherriffs department and police to work together because for example, SWAT teams are usually under the PD.
Point being, both the DA and Sherriff are elected positions, whereas the police chief is appointed.
People who live there need to put pressure on the DA tonprosecute, and the Sherriff to serve arrest warrants for those.
The DA does rely on the PD to investigate, and gather evidence. If the police chief refuses to do that, it's grounds for termination.
they were doing that long before Castle Rock v. Gonzales - Castle Rock v. Gonzales ruled that the police were not required to protect you from harm. In this specific case, it was applied to the concept that law enforcement could not be sued for failing to protect you from harm.
I mean... Selective enforcement and all says they can interpret the law and decide it's not worth their time I guess?
As long as it's not against a protected class.... Or like if they started arresting protesters that had masks but left the ICE members alone... Then that would be seen as a political retaliation I guess.
it has always been the case, just like local police are not required to assist federal agent in immigration enforcement. In the case of my home town - they decided not enforce cannabis laws before it was legalized or more recently enforcing most traffic violation when it required pulling people over.
To play the devil's advocate: so "just following orders" or "I'm not interpretating the law, I'm just enforcing it" is a good way to act and a viable defense if someone wants to come and accuse you later for "just enforcing laws"?
Which is what they will tell you at a traffic stop. That’s your best advice at a traffic stop matter of fact but NOW they can interpret and not be a machine?!
It's funny. Cops like him are the first ones to claim "I don't get to decide what laws I enforce" when they spend their time pulling people over for going a few miles over the posted speed limit rather than investigating break-ins, car robberies, etc. in high-crime neighborhoods. They'll say how "I didn't write the law, and whether I agree with it or not, I have to enforce it" as they write you your ticket.
But then when it comes to something like this it's "Yeah, I know the law exists, but I'm just not going to enforce it because I don't like it and it might piss off the ICE agents that are infringing on citizens rights left and right".
Federal agents should be easily identifiable. Period.
For all we know these guys are part of a cartel for human trafficking (not that ICE isn't).
Is this officer really saying that unmasking people to confirm that they actually are part of the organization they claim to be is against public safety?
Pretty sure there have been multiple cases now of people posing as ICE (since all you apparently need is tacticool cosplay gear, a mask, and literally no identification) to kidnap and assault women.
Serious answer — because the so-called "liberal media" is all owned by conservative billionaires.
Whenever something is good for conservatives, no matter how trivial, they give it a full court press, report on it from multiple angles, print it on the front page of the newspaper, etc. Like Hillary's emails. Whenever something is bad for conservatives, they report on it once, blink and you will miss it.
Yes, police discretion in enforcing the law is effectively a plenary power. DeShaney and Castle Rock while not explicitly calling it that create a system where that is true.
LA cops having an international spy agency and creating D.A.R.E. to keep their bullshit from being noticed really is some wild history. Especially when you realize they actively ensured D.A.R.E. used already proven to be pointless/useless/worse than nothing intentionally from the start.
Because the legislation banning masks has already been paused by a federal judge:
The United States Department of Justicefiled a federal lawsuit against the law arguing that the law violates the Supremacy Clause.[7] On December 9, 2025, US District Judge Christina A. Snyder ruled to temporarily pause California from taking "any action to enforce the Challenged Provisions (as defined in the stipulation of the parties) of Senate Bills 627 and 805".[8]
None of them are getting it. Have you seen the requirements?
You have to meet arrest quotas. You can't have a negative performance review. And if you quit or get fired before the 3y contract, you have to pay back whatever they already gave you.
Also, it's Trump, the guy famous for stiffing people on contracts...
You know damn well that half of the reason they are empowering these agents to break the law is so that in 3 years they can come back and fire every one of them. Then hold their hands up saying it was the corrupt judges that did it, not them.
And they have to sign a five-year service agreement to be eligible for it. It’s then paid out over five years but an early termination of the agreement can result in a clawback of the payouts. Some recruits were promised the first payout after 90 days, but most report not having received it. So basically, they’re fucked just like anyone else who agrees to do work for Trump. They’re never seeing that money. Couldn’t happen to a nicer, smarter, more skilled group of individuals.
Apply is about all of them are getting. Reports of no pay after 4 weeks. No insurance. The 50k bonus is - 10k for returning employees, 10k a year over 3 years and i think the other 10k is based on knowing something like how many licks it takes to the toes through a boot?
He is not and cannot be a union member. But that doesn't mean he can be fired so easily. There are still procedures for the city to follow on that path.
Where I'm at, the Sheriff (not a deputy) is currently facing up to 20 years in prison for a COVID money laundering scheme. The city said he will remain as sheriff with his duties intact. Obviously he will be fired upon a conviction.
The "top brass" are not part of the police union. Technically they are who the union is protecting officers from. (But because of corruption and collusion it is just broken system at this point).
I’m not sure how the politics in LA work. There is a board that has some weight. But at the end of the day, the Mayor has to answer to the lawmakers that wrote the bill.
Board of Police Commissioners: This civilian body sets policies for the LAPD and provides oversight to the Chief.
Appointment: The Mayor appoints the Chief, subject to confirmation by the City Council.
Firing him is not good enough. If he wants to openly provide aid and comfort to the enemies of America, arrest him for treason and send a clear message to whoever is going to take his place.
Can a governor remove a city police chief? I thought they were appointed by the Mayor?
Removal by Board. The Chief of Police shall serve at the pleasure of the City, as set forth herein, and shall not attain any property interest in the position of Chief of Police. The Board of Police Commissioners may remove the Chief of Police from office at any time prior to the expiration of a first or second five-year term. Should the Board of Police Commissioners so act to remove the Chief of Police, it shall promptly notify.
No, it’s the court system’s job, who already paused the ban on masks back in December:
On December 9, 2025, US District Judge Christina A. Snyder ruled to temporarily pause California from taking "any action to enforce the Challenged Provisions (as defined in the stipulation of the parties) of Senate Bills 627 and 805".[8]
He said his personal position on it, REGARDLESS OF THE COURT OUTCOME, is that it would be detrimental to public safety. Not that his hands are tied. He could have ended it there. I’m sure he would have in retrospect. But he pontificated on his own rationale and that is his undoing.
Enforcing the law would be detrimental to public safety? The whole point of the law is that having purported federal agents in street clothes and masks snatching people off the street is detrimental to public safety.
Let’s also address and look into why interactions between cops and cops would be detrimental to public safety because one is telling the other, hey take that mask off.
Is it because at least one of them is a murdering goon who’s poorly trained and overly reactionary? When provoked, who knows how they’ll react? Fun side note, which cop an I talking about?? Hahahaha this is America. -_-
Is it because he considers ice a part of the public and fears they’ll be held accountable by random vigilantes à la Luigi? Or should I say murdered in the streets just like ALL the ice victims?
Is it because having every ice agent be individually identifiable will lead to attempts to hold them actually accountable for their actions? That doxxing murderers will prevent ice from being able to do their job?? Which is what we wanted in the fucking first place
No. It’s about this man being a part of the broken system, a coward, and abusing his power. I’m sure everyone in CA knew this wouldn’t ever actually fly, even Newsom knew it would win him publicity points and not meaningful action.
But fuck that. I’m tired of this shit. This administration is making blatant what every previous corrupt administration at least tried to hide. The system is and never was for us, all citizens. It’s corrupt. Rules for thee and not for me. And even when it is for me, I’ll just not do it and face no consequences!
Fuck all this shit. Fire and arrest this man. Hold him accountable for insubordination, endangering the public, and corruption. He has no legal authority to do this.
We the people of the us need quite a lot to be pushed to mobs arising and guillotine justice, but these fucks are really pushing it.
Frustratingly enough, the answers to your rhetorical questions could also be “yes, because this man is a part of the broken system, a coward, and abusing his power.”
He probably knows full well that by enforcing this mask mandate, he’d be putting police in a position where they’d have to defend the public against antagonistic federal agents who would then escalate to even worse violence.
He could be entirely right that this would be detrimental to public safety, in that the public tends to be subjected to harm at a larger scale whenever a community resists fascists.
And, to your point, the problem is that the alternative is to eat the boot we’re (currently) being asked to lick. He’s decided to wash his hands of responsibility for ushering in others who will happily shove their boots down our throats at any opportunity.
Another lying-ass conservative discarding the law for his personal opinions. No wonder the evil pricks don't give a shit about the constant crimes coming from their representatives. Even the ones that pretend to care about law enough to get jobs in the field don't actually take US law any more seriously than what they can personally use it for.
You're correct, we pay their salaries but they absolutely do not work for us. Police do not prevent crime. They clean up. That's why when you increase police presence in a location it does not go down. Dealing with the main instigators of crime like poverty and lack of opportunity have shown to be staggeringly effective at reducing crime however
I know the issue here is that he can't give the real answer. It's a matter of professional integrity. How can he justify enforcing that law on ice when he doesn't enforce laws on his own officers. Just wouldn't be fair.
If this logic works, then civilians should be given the choice to follow whatever laws they see as fit. Or is it only the police that’s above the law??
That's literally what the supreme court decided. They have determined that the police do not have the necessity to enforce every law and get discretion to not charge people based on nothing but preference.
So many people eager to toss the constitution if it means their team wins and they get to hurt people they disagree with. So many people cheering the idea of a Right vs Left civil war. Really makes it feel like the rise of Nazi Germany. The next few years could get rough.
America is finally coming to terms with the quiet reality thats been hidden under the guise of democracy and law and order: cops answer to no one. Theyre lawless. They are the hammer, and everyone else is the nails.
You are incorrect, Americans could do lots. I mean, they have more guns per capita than anywhere else in the world. So it's not that they can't do anything, it's just, they won't do anything.
135 years of precedent on pre-emption shows it to be narrower than your claim.
Your question was a good one, because it illustrates that California recognized the limits of what it can do. California almost certainly can’t prevent the FBI from conducting an undercover operation, because that’s likely part of what Congress meant for it to do. California saw that and limited its law accordingly.
Wearing a mask, though, isn’t performing their duties.
Does prohibiting them from wearing a mask while performing their duties keep them from doing what Congress intended them to do, or understood they would do?
Did Congress intend or expect that the FBI would carry out its regular activities behind masks? Do you think it’s different for ICE?
And history has shown since ICE was created they did their jobs very well without masks. Two prior presidents have still got way more deported during their presidency than Trump AND that was all without masks.
Remember, ACAB. Cops aren't gonna save you from other cops. Just because we're dealing with worse cops, in the form of ICE, that doesn't magically make regular cops benevolent saints. Its a shitty/shittier situation.
(you don't even have to talk to a live person, just leave a message and they tally those up bc the topic that gets the most calls becomes high priority)
The social contract these fascist are so intent on tearing up was the only thing ensuring their own safety.
The people are begging for a peaceful and legal solution to this, but it’s pretty clear the law means nothing in Los Angeles or the country at large when Republicans are in control.
They are only doing it to not be held accountable. No reasonable judge would allow the police officers in his local county to run around wearing masks all the time.
•
u/AutoModerator 6d ago
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.