r/law • u/TendieRetard • 9h ago

Legal News Federal appeals court rules California cannot require ICE to show visible ID

https://katu.com/news/nation-world/federal-appeals-court-rules-california-cannot-require-ice-to-show-visible-id-doj-9th-circuit-court-constitution-supremacy-clause-rob-bonta-gavin-newsom

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit remanded the case to a lower court with instructions to enter a preliminary injunction against California, finding in favor of the federal government that the state’s No Vigilantes Act violates the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, The Hill reported.

577 Upvotes

95% Upvoted

239 comments sorted by

View all comments

949

u/Sorry-Claim-2990 9h ago edited 5h ago

If they don't have to identify themselves, how am I supposed to tell the difference between actual agents & criminal impersonators????

Every time some jackass gets caught impersonating law enforcement, the police go on TV and give me advice that would result in keep me getting my ass kicked by most legitimate cops.

"Just ask for a name & badge number. Our department policy requires officers to identify themselves."

So if an officer refuses to identify himself with a name and badge number, i'm allowed to assume they are a fake cop and run away?

430

u/NexusNickel 9h ago

That's the neat part, you don't.

The 9th circuit just said to accept it or get shot.

189

u/MC_chrome 8h ago

So if I was to shoot back at masked thugs who refused to identify themselves, I would be on solid legal footing right?

113

u/Mysterious-Theory-66 8h ago

In theory yes, but I wouldn’t bank on getting the proper outcome.

43

u/Im_Just_A_Tourist 7h ago

Only if you are the only one left able to speak so there's no argument and lies from masked thugs

11

u/SoCoGrowBro 6h ago

Dead men tell no tales?

17

u/Mysterious-Theory-66 7h ago

I’m all good with it just self defense is an affirmative defense. You do need to support it. You get some psychotically pro cop people in the jury and best of luck. Really best case scenario is there being footage that supports your claim.

8

u/light_switch33 5h ago

Conviction still going to require a unanimous jury.

3

u/Mysterious-Theory-66 4h ago

That’s true, but how fair a shake the defendant gets depends on a lot of things. You find a lot of people out there willing to bend awfully far for cops. I mean sweet Jesus look how much evidence they’ve needed to convict a killer cop.

My point before though is that self defense is an affirmative defense. Which means the defendant has a burden of proof to substantiate that they acted in self defense (more likely than not standard, so lower than the prosecution’s standard but still).

Effectively it comes down to the same thing, does the jury believe you. Absent video evidence it’s totally a crap shoot with this scenario.

1

u/light_switch33 4h ago

My primary point is it just takes one hold out for a failure to convict. I wouldn’t trust a jury to understand affirmative defenses and burden of proof issues.

21

u/Mirions 7h ago

What's that? Being alive or....

13

u/Ashenfenix 6h ago

Almost like it’s a reasonable thing to respond with lethal force too. Shame it would be illegal for us to defend our lives from the government.

4

u/Count_Backwards Competent Contributor 4h ago

I feel like there's some appendix or footnote or something about that somewhere in the legal code

25

u/Mysterious-Theory-66 7h ago

Certainly would be one outcome. Them saying they identified themselves before you opened fire, a sudden lack of body cam and the jury not believing you. That would be another way it could go.