Does this mean when a hooded person commits a crime like robbing a bank then killing a few people on the way out that they can charge that person with concealing their identity? Makes a whole lot of sense.
Yep. Crazy isn't it.
Yep. Crazy isn't it.
I really think most people haven't even bothered to read the text of the proposed change. I think its a complete waste of time and not needed but people are blowing this way out of proportion and turning it into something completely outside the intended purpose.
^^^ I did, just going with the flow because its funny.
It amends existing statute to read:
This expands on the existing language that related to:
So now simply to conceal my identity is a crime in and of itself, rather than concealing my identity in the commission of another crime.
The law is ridiculous and I'm not sure the public outcry is unwarranted or disproportionate to the absurdity of the law. What am I missing?
The fact that the law is already on the books and has been for sometime but the media is playing it like the "hoodie" thing completely new when "hoodie" isn't even mentioned anywhere in the amendment to the law.
I dont understand what you mean by this? The amendment says to intentionally conceal your identity why would you be intentionally concealing you identity if you aren't doing anything wrong?
Does this mean when a hooded person commits a crime like robbing a bank then killing a few people on the way out that they can charge that person with concealing their identity? Makes a whole lot of sense.
There is a change to existing law though. saltydog's example is currently illegal under existing statute (complete with "hood" language. The law as proposed makes concealing one's identity a crime. That is NOT presently in the books. That's the rub. I can wear my balaclava running at 11 AM on a Sunday (which in fact, I did) and that could be construed as a violation of statute based on the proposed amendment. It was not criminal before as I was not committing a crime by simply jogging.
Like my example above, I can intentionally wear something (a hood, balaclava, scarf) for another reason such as warmth of fashion or whatever, and because that act is intentional, it could be argued I am in violation of statute.
The weather part is covered in the amendment.
I think I understand the point you are making and maybe there needs to be some wording added but I think the intent of the language is talking about to wear something with the sole intent to conceal your identity not for fashion or any other reason than to hide who you are.
I think I understand the point you are making and maybe there needs to be some wording added but I think the intent of the language is talking about to wear something with the sole intent to conceal your identity not for fashion or any other reason than to hide who you are.
Similar threads
- Sub Category: Handguns
- Sale Price: 575$
- Caliber: 9
