there is no constitutional right to not have your name showing.
6 Likes
why are people mad about this and trying to justify it because crims donât. just show your name and do your patrol my fucking god
9 Likes
OH also.
Not gonna publically put it out there, but thereâs an easy way around EO55 (if the department head agrees.)
Just saying.
3 Likes
all i really could say is this is an âinvasion of privacyâ but i mean likeâŚ
and w the freedom of information i mean ur also a govt employee so if like they ask for ur callsign its not classified lol
âshould a citizen request for information thwt is actively collected to be released, the relevant department, agency, entity, etc. shall be obligated to release the information.â
and as well Section 1 of the BoR.
nor does EO55 also violate BOR Section 5 bc its not having them âincriminate themselvesâ because it applies to court of law or to any LEO and any citizen asking them for their callsign and or whomever isnât a court of law or a LEO (even if off-duty they arent actively doing their duty of a LEO) so their rights arenât being violated when in reality their badge number / last name is on their shirt
and if youâre stopping someone you have to identify yourself.
ok im not a bca / lawyer so ik my stuff isnât all whatsoever right completely right / etc etc
but u get what im saying
it doesnât violate anything in the bill of rights, any congressional act, so honestly its perfectly fine, just, and the people who are to be protected from it are.
6 Likes
hiding your name is not in your civil rights.
6 Likes
no
5chars
5 Likes
Firstly, the Constitution very clearly doesnât grant you that right. Two, you are the stateârights donât exist for you. Case law reflects this in allowing several restrictions towards public employees that otherwise are impermissible.
8 Likes
According to the âChris Courtâ gov employees do have rights
7 Likes
ima keep it real chris, thatâs some of the dumbest opinion Iâve ever read. Itâs self incriminating to identify yourself when acting in the capacity of an officer? You must legally identify yourself, if your badge number isnât enough to hold you accountable in court, it isnât proper identification. Why should I believe you are who you are because you have a game mechanic car? A game mechanic hat and gun? Nah G any officer that wont identify themselves shouldnât be on the force period.
11 Likes
I mean if anything only units who are currently operating in undercover uniforms should be allowed to hide their names but all marked units (incl. tac units) should be mandated to show their names since thereâs really not much reason and imagine if someone impersonated a tact. unit and gave the name and badge of an online tact. unit thereâs not much an officer would be able to differentiate between an actual tactical unit to an impersonator. (without the helmet on and with matching accessories)
9 Likes
All this does is hold people responsible for their actions when someone cant ask for their name and badge.
8 Likes
Iâve been a DOC Correctional Officer for around a week now. I have previously served in FSP around 2018 (before the whole show your name shit) and I can honestly say it makes no difference. Having our names shown isnât even a big deal, and I think most officers just bitch about it because they are afraid of doing something wrong in the moment.
5 Likes
correct
your career can literally be over if you misjudge a split-second situation. this is why we need qualified immunity in firestone
8 Likes
yes! Absolutely!
4 Likes
name and badge does not establish poid
5 Likes
Correct, but showing name does, so it super holds them responsible. Its really needed to catch cops who act like idiots
4 Likes
Qualified immunity isnât the answer, especially when the burden of proof is already at the highest it can be in civil cases. More leeway in punishments is the better option, and I believe that already exists thanks to SerZhukovâs amendment to A Bill to Combat Ineffective Law Enforcement. The only instance where an officerâs career would legitimately be ended in seconds is if they commit a felony offense and are convicted in court. Making LEOs immune to the law would directly contradict our very own preamble; no one is above the law, regardless of status within society.
10 Likes
Arenât cops âimmuneâ enough. Youâll see a cop do something illegal but be let go due to being a cop while if it was a citizen there wouldnât be any hesitation about throwing them in jail.
5 Likes
QI need not exist anywhere, and it will never exist in FS
5 Likes
Should Supreme Court justices be, while serving as a justice, making a public statement like that? Sounds a bit unethical if you ask me.
5 Likes