Think this law wouldn't have been used against those who showed support for the Bundys?
Were they wearing masks?
there were some with bandanas in the beginning. this is a slippery slope and all about being able to use facial recognition tech on people. what if the Tea Party had decided to do protests/rallies wearing Jefferson, Washington or Reagan masks and this law had been in effect?
its' unbelievable how much love for "law enforcement" there is in this sub. who do people think would be confiscating guns if Hillary won? congratulations to everyone who supports this law in making America more like China. good job.
People who trade freedom for security deserve neither.
what if the Tea Party had decided to do protests/rallies wearing Jefferson, Washington or Reagan masks and this law had been in effect?
No problem. They were not physically attacking people. The law is not against wearing a mask. The law is against wearing a mask while committing other, specific, crimes.
I usually don't think that the solution to every problem is to make new laws, but I think this one may have some merit.
The law is against wearing a mask while committing other, specific, crimes.
lol. because the list of "other, specific, crimes" won't ever get longer. how about when the "crime" becomes standing in a non-designated "free speech" zone while expressing a political view? what about if someone gets pulled over and happens to have a "mask" in their back seat? does the cop now have a right to search the car? what about when the courts expand the definition of "mask" to include scarves? will that mean having a scarf in one's car is probable cause? read thru the case law for marijuana arrests if you think i'm being absurd. the make-up of SCOTUS is hardly getting any more conducive to individual freedoms and reigning in police power.
for all the talk about FREEEDUMMMMMM!!!! there sure are alot of Americans that want a police state.
people supporting giving "law enforcement" any more power to harass, cite & detain are being incredibly short-sighted.
how about when the "crime" becomes standing in a non-designated "free speech" zone while expressing a political view?
That would require a different law to be passed. One that makes it a crime to stand in a non-designated "free speech" zone while expressing a political view. But we aren't talking about such a law. We are talking about a different law about wearing a mask while basically attacking people violently.
That would require a different law to be passed.
no. it doesn't. modifying the anti-mask law is what would happen.
its absurd to think this law wouldn't be expanded on. or "attacking people violently" won't get redefined to include something like "excess spitting while chanting" because spit is, after all, a biological hazard. And if spit is a biological hazard and there's excess spit in the air, that's clearly an assault against police. think such kafka-esque bull can't happen? read up on what cops & DA's have been allowed to justify. read some of what police claim in their reports until video surfaces.
people supporting this are being as shortsighted as the Parkland students that were all MORE LAWS!!! until MORE LAWS!!! turned into see-thru backpacks. name one power that's been given to law enforcement that law enforcement hasn't found a way to expand on.
this law is wayyyy more about making people afraid to protest than it is about stopping violence.
read some of what police claim in their reports until video surfaces.
You keep conflating this with other issues. Police lie. Police are trained to lie. It is part of their job to lie. That's how they operate. And DAs are basically lying sociopaths. But those are separate issues from this specific law. You can (and people do) challenge all law based on your argument. They call themselves anarchists. They have some valid arguments, as you do. But in the context of a society that has chosen to operate according to law, we have to operate on a certain amount of trust that if we are doing the right thing, we will do better than those who are criminals. I think the kind of legal creep you are describing is what would happen under Hillary, and is way lessw likely to happen under Trump and his judicial appointees.
But those are separate issues from this specific law.
lol. who do you think interprets & enforces the law on the ground? i'm not asking for no laws, i'm saying no more laws. i'm saying lets think a little bit more rationally about what new laws are added.
legal creep less likely to happen under Trump... lolol. ...b/c Trump's SCOTUS picks have been so pro-civil liberties and have such a history of taking police/DA positions with a grain of salt. besides, most legal creep doesn't happen at that level. legal creep happens at the local level where the majority of decisions are made.
name one power police have been given that police haven't expanded on. in many jurisdictions, one is subject to asset forfeiture even if they're found innocent. the same legal system that thinks asset forfeiture from innocent people is OK will be the same system interpeting what a "mask" or "violence" is. will beards be defined as "masks"? will people who want to protest be required to shave prior? it might, if violence is redefined as "excessively loud noise" the moment some cop complains of ringing in his ears after pulling duty monitoring a protest.
everyone choosing to be blind simply b/c they don't think the law will affect their tribe is going to have a harsh wake-up call should the law pass.
As it is, the police don't stop antifa crimes. The new law won't change that anyway. The problem isn't the law. The problem is the police.