[Dig1t]

Sure, that’s true and I’m not disputing that. Death threats and threats against the families of officers are different. Officers don’t have a right to privacy but there’s also no requirement that they expose their identities when faced with violence and intimidation from the mob.

[toomuchtodo]

Yes, they are still required to. Don’t take the job if you can’t handle the risk. There are other jobs without the legal requirement. As law enforcement, it is your job to face potential violence or physical harm every day. If that isn’t clear in the job requirements or training, that’s a gap to be closed.

I don’t support or condone death threats, but I also don’t support hiding your identity as an agent of the government when you’re potentially breaking the law and violating human and constitutional rights publicly. If a private citizen attempted this (again, those being abducted who are US citizens or those otherwise legally in the country), it would be grounds to use lethal force under stand your ground laws. To be clear, again, I do not support death threats, nor the use of force (lethal or otherwise) against law enforcement assuming they are not exceeding their authority.

[Dig1t]

I think it’s fine to just obey the letter of the law. If legally an officer is required to self identify in a specific circumstance then they should absolutely do so. If they are not required to, then why should they voluntarily identify themselves if it means their family is going to receive death threats?

If you want them to identify themselves more frequently then try using democracy to pass new laws requiring them to identify in more circumstances.

[toomuchtodo]

That is indeed what California is doing with the No Vigilantes Act (SB 805).

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml...