"Annoy" a cop, go to prison
81
Posts: 58,276
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ny-senate-p ... elony.html
Bill would basically allow police to arrest based on their own subjective impulses
Adan Salazar
Prison Planet.com
June 6, 2013
Lawmakers in New York may have jumped the shark with their latest police protection bill.
New York Senate Bill 2402 would effectively make it a class E felony to “annoy” so-called peace officers.
The bill, in part, reads:
A PERSON IS GUILTY OF AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT OF A POLICE OFFICER OR PEACE OFFICER WHEN, WITH THE INTENT TO HARASS, ANNOY, THREATEN OR ALARM A PERSON WHOM HE OR SHE KNOWS OR REASONABLY SHOULD KNOW TO BE A POLICE OFFICER OR PEACE OFFICER ENGAGED IN THE COURSE OF PERFORMING HIS OR HER OFFICIAL DUTIES, HE OR SHE STRIKES, SHOVES, KICKS OR OTHERWISE SUBJECTS SUCH PERSON TO PHYSICAL CONTACT.
According to WIVB, Sen. Joe Griffo, one of the original sponsors of the bill, defended it and the all-important police state arguing, “Police officers who risk their lives every day in our cities and on our highways deserve every possible protection, and those who treat them with disrespect, harass them and create situations that can lead to injuries deserve to pay a price for their actions.”
Besides the otherwise lame attempt to justify a bill that in essence gives police free rein to claim physical annoyance, there is no actual explanation given for creating such a bill.
If signed into law, offenders would be subjected to the same penalties as other class E felonies like “placing a false bomb or hazardous substance” in a public place, and “riot in the first degree.” This is the lowest felony charge in New York, but can still carry a penalty of up to 4 years imprisonment, depending on the judge’s decision.
Given the fact that police almost universally disapprove of those who dare film them, little effort is needed to imagine them citing the bill’s content as justification for their arrest of citizen journalists like We Are Change’s Luke Rudkowski, who routinely gets into confrontations with police, or our own intrepid Infowars reporter Dan Bidondi, who it could be argued “harassed” authorities at the Boston Marathon press conferences when they had to physically touch him.
In addition, the bill virtually welcomes and protects police who would provoke citizens into any kind of spat, as, under the vague language of the bill, any physical “harassment” can be deemed unlawful.
RT also noted how questionable laws were increasingly being cited by police in their own defense, noting the example of New York homeowner Emily Good, who was arrested by police in Rochester “while standing in her yard and videotaping police officers who were performing a traffic stop in front of her house.”
“When Good insisted on her right to stand in her yard, she was arrested, handcuffed, and taken away in a police car. She was later charged with obstructing governmental administration.” Police told Good they didn’t feel safe with her standing behind them recording.
Recently we also witnessed a 14-year-old in Florida get slammed to the ground and put in a choke hold for what amounted to little more than throwing police “dehumanizing stares.”
In essence, the bill, if passed, would allow police to arrest according to their own subjective impulses.
Bill would basically allow police to arrest based on their own subjective impulses
Adan Salazar
Prison Planet.com
June 6, 2013
Lawmakers in New York may have jumped the shark with their latest police protection bill.
New York Senate Bill 2402 would effectively make it a class E felony to “annoy” so-called peace officers.
The bill, in part, reads:
A PERSON IS GUILTY OF AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT OF A POLICE OFFICER OR PEACE OFFICER WHEN, WITH THE INTENT TO HARASS, ANNOY, THREATEN OR ALARM A PERSON WHOM HE OR SHE KNOWS OR REASONABLY SHOULD KNOW TO BE A POLICE OFFICER OR PEACE OFFICER ENGAGED IN THE COURSE OF PERFORMING HIS OR HER OFFICIAL DUTIES, HE OR SHE STRIKES, SHOVES, KICKS OR OTHERWISE SUBJECTS SUCH PERSON TO PHYSICAL CONTACT.
According to WIVB, Sen. Joe Griffo, one of the original sponsors of the bill, defended it and the all-important police state arguing, “Police officers who risk their lives every day in our cities and on our highways deserve every possible protection, and those who treat them with disrespect, harass them and create situations that can lead to injuries deserve to pay a price for their actions.”
Besides the otherwise lame attempt to justify a bill that in essence gives police free rein to claim physical annoyance, there is no actual explanation given for creating such a bill.
If signed into law, offenders would be subjected to the same penalties as other class E felonies like “placing a false bomb or hazardous substance” in a public place, and “riot in the first degree.” This is the lowest felony charge in New York, but can still carry a penalty of up to 4 years imprisonment, depending on the judge’s decision.
Given the fact that police almost universally disapprove of those who dare film them, little effort is needed to imagine them citing the bill’s content as justification for their arrest of citizen journalists like We Are Change’s Luke Rudkowski, who routinely gets into confrontations with police, or our own intrepid Infowars reporter Dan Bidondi, who it could be argued “harassed” authorities at the Boston Marathon press conferences when they had to physically touch him.
In addition, the bill virtually welcomes and protects police who would provoke citizens into any kind of spat, as, under the vague language of the bill, any physical “harassment” can be deemed unlawful.
RT also noted how questionable laws were increasingly being cited by police in their own defense, noting the example of New York homeowner Emily Good, who was arrested by police in Rochester “while standing in her yard and videotaping police officers who were performing a traffic stop in front of her house.”
“When Good insisted on her right to stand in her yard, she was arrested, handcuffed, and taken away in a police car. She was later charged with obstructing governmental administration.” Police told Good they didn’t feel safe with her standing behind them recording.
Recently we also witnessed a 14-year-old in Florida get slammed to the ground and put in a choke hold for what amounted to little more than throwing police “dehumanizing stares.”
In essence, the bill, if passed, would allow police to arrest according to their own subjective impulses.
81 is now off the air
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Kinda conflicts with the last part.
Sure there are some asshole-ish police officers. There are also asshole-ish teachers, lawyers, firefighters, military, etc.
I don't know why people, police included, aren't simply held accountable for their actions, why a special bill needs to be passed.
I know... isn't it possible for the cop to be the one who initiates the altercation? Can't they bait someone into 'annoying' them, so they can make an arrest?
It is fucking scary.
Hail, Hail!!!
Yup, we live in a free country that's for sure. :roll:
Unreal the shit they want to pass.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Not me i agree ....
I can read just fine, you haven't met many cops, especially the young psycho ones who are going to get within an inch of your face because you didn't respond to their Nazi like bark quick enough. There's common sense and there's reality.
even when dealing with private citizens in the same situation making physical contact can be considered an assault. no difference here.
Are you 'annoying' the cop as he is in the course of performing his duty? If so, can he arrest you under the protection of this legislation?
Hail, Hail!!!
I had a cop give me a speeding ticket several years ago. He was parked on the side of a road and he hit the lights before I was even with him. I asked how he measured my speed. He said, "It was a visual." I went to court to fight the ticket and told the judge what happened. The cop said, "I've never said that in my life." A lie. But what can you do? I looked at the judge and shrugged my shoulders and rolled my eyes but kept quiet. The judge had to side with the cop but reduced my fee considerably. That's about all you can hope for.
Brian, I'm with you on this. Mainly because I understand that the person with a taser, nightstick, gun and the power of the badge to autorize their usage... wins. I don't fuck with cops... the same way I don't fuck with rattlesnakes or rip tides.
But, I have been in situations whereI was instructed by one cop to exit and area going in one direction... only to have another cop tell me to turn around and go the other way. When I tried to explain that I was told to go this way, I got orders shouted at me. Not wanting to get tasered, i followed the instructing til I met up with the first cops. Turns out, the second cop was wrong and i was going the right way... but, there was no fucking way I was goingto argue with him... his taser, nightstick, gun and badge.
Hail, Hail!!!
For reason's sake.
There's been a multiple shooting out here today near and at the Santa Monica college campus. At least three people shot, I believe. Another body just found, all still ongoing, with a (related?) housefire where two people were found dead.
Watching the police and sheriffs and SWAT people do their thing, I'd have no problem with them dealing with any idiot trying to get in their way of investigating and keeping everyone safe.
I'm just trying to imagine under what possible circumstance would anybody assault an on duty fireman.
and by on-duty, I take it to mean, in the act of putting out an active fire. :shock: I mean, wow
Mr. 81, your thread title is a bit misleading. and so is your interpretation, I think, ...if that is yours in the first sentence.
It clearly says if you strike (or kick, or otherwise contact) a cop (with the intent to annoy alarm harass or threaten) then you could be arrested.
I think they could have said it more directly by simply saying "if you physically contact an officer with malicious intent...."
but still, the people who wrote the article are misinterpreting it, obviously, no? am I missing something?
yet the article calls it this:
wtf?
no seriously, what am I missing here?
:shock: Oh man, Cosmo! Sounds like a nasty situation. I assume you came through it ok but man, does not sound like fun!
"(Don't Fuck With) Cops, Rattlesnakes 'n Riptides"... should be a song title, eh?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Its not just putting out fires. We respond to MVA's (including drunk drivers), medical calls, domestic violence calls, and shootings/stabbings. Fireman deal with people in almost everything they do. So, naturally, we run into crazies from time to time.
That being said, I personally know of several fireman that deserved a good punch in the throat just for being a dick to somebody that didn't deserve it.
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013 ... y-protests
The whole world will be different soon the whole world will be RELIEVED
#resistgezi #resistturkey #resisttaksim #direnturkiye #direngezi
#standingman #duranadam
here, lets simplify it:
"A PERSON IS GUILTY OF AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT OF A POLICE OFFICER OR PEACE OFFICER WHEN HE OR SHE STRIKES, SHOVES, KICKS OR OTHERWISE SUBJECTS SUCH PERSON TO PHYSICAL CONTACT WITH THE INTENT TO HARASS, ANNOY, THREATEN OR ALARM [THEM].
What's the problem with this law?
I think it is just a restatement of existing harassment \ assault laws PROBABLY for the purposes of redefining "INTENT" and for keeping assholes from getting out of assault charges on officers based on some overly legalistic court room arguments. I'm guessing the main reason for this is the legalism surrounding "INTENT". This new law makes it so that your intent can be simply to "annoy" the cop with your physical harassment, as opposed to having to prove in a court that the assailant's INTENT was to HARM.
??? my thoughts. anyhow.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
That one word "Annoy" paints a very broad stroke, not like a pissed off cop can't arrest you and make up a story later anyway, but hey now it's legal! Happy Joy Joy, here's a question for all those defending this new law, How oh ever How? did cops ever get by before This? Right? Good thing they're passing this law.
Ya Fuckin Sheep. :wave:
Are you still not getting it?
DO YOU THINK IT IS OKAY TO "STRIKE, SHOVE OR KICK" A POLICE OFFICER?
This law is about PHYSICALLY ABUSING AN OFFICER (with the INTENT to "annoy", harass, threaten, or alarm)
The reason for it is probably because ASSAULT laws require SPECIFIC INTENT (ie. you INTEND TO HARM)... this law is probably so some dumb ass who kicks a cop's leg at a protest, or pushes him at a rally, that dumb ass can now be charged with "aggravated harassment.".
bahhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
If I opened it now would you not understand?
In this case "Ya Fuckin Sheep" equals people who have actually read and understand the statute.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."