- Joined
- Oct 28, 2005
- Messages
- 29,840
- Reaction score
- 12,179
Gotta throw soy at the constituents, he knowsLOL wrote by Scott Weiner it makes sense now. The legendary retard doesn't even know what federal means apparently.
Gotta throw soy at the constituents, he knowsLOL wrote by Scott Weiner it makes sense now. The legendary retard doesn't even know what federal means apparently.
...Did you not read the case you claimed supports your argument? It literally says in the first paragraph: For the following reasons, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and defendants' motion is DENIED.Why dont we go with a famous one
KNIGHTS OF KU KLUX KLAN v. Kerik
CHURCH OF AMER. KNIGHTS OF KU KLUX KLAN v. Kerik.
And? The question stands. What democracies have roving raids from masked police officers on primarily non-violent criminals?
Most arrests will be quite routine and not violent. Ergo, public transparency outweighs officer privacy in my books. Not to mention California wants this policy, so democracy in action (excepting the federal part that will probably get struck).A lot of the illegals being detained are actually criminals. And even non-criminals can freak out or get violent during an arrest.
Violent or non-violent doesn't matter. They're getting arrested because they're illegal.
...Did you not read the case you claimed supports your argument? It literally says in the first paragraph: For the following reasons, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and defendants' motion is DENIED.
Or to further illustrate why these laws fail even modest scrutiny:
"In short, if there is a state interest, it fails to satisfy the standard required to justify an infringement on political speech. Thus, while the defendants are, of course, mandated to enforce laws punishing disorderly and criminal behavior directly, the First Amendment vitiates the jurisdiction of the anti-mask statute as a means of doing so indirectly.
It can be, but transparency has its costs. If a police officer is uncomfortable showing their face in the communities they serve, they are free to quit.
Because those are much more likely to involve violent criminals and criminal organizations.
It can be, but transparency has its costs. If a police officer is uncomfortable showing their face in the communities they serve, they are free to quit.
Should I take you continuously refusing to answer these simple questions as a lack of knowledge on the issues?
What specific circumstances would you be okay with them wearing masks?Masked Police outside of specific circumstances is an affront to free democratic society. The fact that supposed don't tread on me 2nd amendment is needed to see off tyranical Government Conservatives support this because they are targeting the 'other' is not at all surprising, but shows their hypocrisy.
The point is that citizens have rights. Law Enforcement serves the public so they are held to a different standard.Oh look, another lefty that wants to target law enforcement while they hide their own face.
You realize that they mandated mask for covid. Even arrested a guy surfing by himself.
So it was just a flu bro?And bull shit on a compelling reason to take away my rights.

What specific circumstances would you be okay with them wearing masks?
- I'm surprised theres not people pretending to be ICE and comiting crimes. Or even ICE agenst comting crimes in anonimityVery good, more states should follow suit and challenge masked Feds being sent into their states.
- Isnt that the Foot Clan from TMNT?
Akatsuki.- Isnt that the Foot Clan from TMNT?
So it was just a flu bro?![]()
No, they don't have authority over feds. Newsom will not sign this. He's not going to fight a battle he knows he can't win- he's getting ready to run against JD Vance in '28.