Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: NY Senate Passes Bill Making annoying a Police Officer a Felony

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran Right Wing Wacko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    645

    Angry NY Senate Passes Bill Making annoying a Police Officer a Felony

    The New York State Senate today passed a bill that creates the crime of aggravated harassment of a police or peace officer. The bill (S.2402), sponsored by Senator Joe Griffo (R-C-I, Rome) would make it a felony to harass, annoy, or threaten a police officer while on duty.

    “Our system of laws is established to protect the foundations of our society,” Senator Griffo said. “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.”

    The bill establishes this crime as a Class E Felony, punishable by up to four years in prison. http://www.nysenate.gov/press-releas...-officer-crime

  2. #2
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by Ca Patriot View Post
    the proposed law also requires that physical contact be made.
    Does the required "physical contact" include exhaled air?
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Please post the language of the proposed law. What I am seeing is just a conclusion. At least one person has posted good reason to doubt that conclusion.

    I will not touch a police officer during a lawful stop. Therefore, if touching him is required to be guilty of annoying him, I will never be guilty of annoying him. At worst, this law will give a rogue officer another avenue to violate a citizen's rights (by falsely claiming unlawful annoyance despite zero touching). However, they already have and will always have other tools to try to harass folks for contempt of cop while that hides behind some law.

    Carry a recorder. If they threaten you with unlawful annoyance, make sure that your statement that you are not touching him is not on the tape. If he touches you, be sure that a statement to that effect makes it onto the tape also.

    Unless someone posts the actual text and I see something of concern in that text, then this earns a big meh. It is more of a waste of tax dollars than a danger to the tiny amount of Liberty the folks in NY are allowed by the State to exercise.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Yep. This is a big meh. All the stuff that this bill makes illegal is already a crime. This bill just creates a new charge.

    BTW, the crime is not annoying the LEO, that is just one of the motives that will, when proven, will become an element of this new crime.

    S 240.33 AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT OF A POLICE OFFICER OR PEACE OFFICER.
    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.

    AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT OF A POLICE OFFICER OR PEACE OFFICER IS A CLASS
    E FELONY.

  5. #5
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    annoy - to disturb or irritate especially by repeated acts.
    It seems that being armed for lawful self-defense, repeatedly, could be considered irritating by any give LEO.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,156
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    The NYPD needs protection from 'civilians' with scary black high capacity auto-focus anti-shake ASSAULT VIDEO CAMERAS.
    !
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    NY Senate Passes Bill Making annoying a Police Officer a Felony

    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    It seems that being armed for lawful self-defense, repeatedly, could be considered irritating by any give LEO.
    Not under this law. Pistol-whipping him would be illegal under this law, if you were trying to annoy him.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  8. #8
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Not under this law. Pistol-whipping him would be illegal under this law, if you were trying to annoy him.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    Good point, but I consider pistol whipping to be beyond annoying. What has me confounded is a strategically placed 'or'.

    S 240.33 AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT OF A POLICE OFFICER OR PEACE OFFICER.
    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.
    Not being a legal beagle it seems to me that the annoying is segregated from the pistol whipping thus making annoying a cop just as bad as pistol whipping a cop. Could be way off though. Anyway, I'll not be annoying or pistol whipping any cops anywhere especially in the state of New York.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    NY Senate Passes Bill Making annoying a Police Officer a Felony

    The "OR" that you highlighted is between "POLICE OFFICER" and "PEACE OFFICER." It has nothing to do with the actions, but is instead making the actions a crime if the target is either a police officer or a peace officer. I have no idea what the difference is between those two in NY.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    JUSTIFICATION: Police officers all across this state put their lives
    on the line every day to protect the people of New York. New York
    State must establish laws and toughen existing laws that protect the
    police from becoming victims of criminals. Far too many law
    enforcement officers are being harassed, injured, even killed while
    honoring their commitment to protect and serve this state. The
    Legislature has a responsibility to do everything we can to protect
    our brave heroes, our police officers, from violent criminals. This
    legislation contributes to that premise


    "Preamble" to the text of the new law ... why would this just be limited to police .. seems like the legislature does not care about its citizens, only other gov't employees

    + I like to annoy cops sometimes, when they are annoying me.

    Sounds like cops should quit and get new, safer jobs ... oh, wait...there is not another safer job.

    What? You are asking me if you can go? That's annoying me!!! 2 yrs in the pen for that!


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-_00q3Tr8E
    Would this guy get arrested under this act? Old video of course ...

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    NY Senate Passes Bill Making annoying a Police Officer a Felony

    Again, folks, READ the law, annoying a cop is not going to be illegal. Kicking him, punching him, etc, in an attempt to annoy him will be made illegal. Hell, it already IS! And, under current law, the prosecutors don't have to prove that annoyance was the motivation!

    Stupid law. Not dangerous to Liberty. Just stupid.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  12. #12
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    The "OR" that you highlighted is between "POLICE OFFICER" and "PEACE OFFICER." It has nothing to do with the actions, but is instead making the actions a crime if the target is either a police officer or a peace officer. I have no idea what the difference is between those two in NY.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    Ah!.....thanks, I see it now. The "distinction" of cop or peace officer threw me. Thanks.

  13. #13
    Regular Member papa bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    mayberry, nc
    Posts
    2,258
    I do believe EYE, he may be a deck but he does present good points . i see this as a way to intimidate the public more. how many LEOs will use this as an excuse to harass citizens? especially those that don't know the difference. how many times will a LEO bump into someone to beat them down?

    this law does a few things. it makes the politician look like he is doing something. it gives the LEO another weapon to use. if i am not mistaking it makes a felon out of someone that only crosses a LEO. another felon that can't own a gun
    Luke 22:36 ; 36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

    "guns are like a Parachute, if you don't have one when you need it, you will not need one again"
    - unknown

    i you call a CHP a CCW then you are really stupid. period.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Ah!.....thanks, I see it now. The "distinction" of cop or peace officer threw me. Thanks.
    The term "police OFFICER" ... I find offense to.

    One definition of OFFICER is a military officer ... and this is what cops want you to equate them with

    But there is difference between a policeman and a soldier. If a soldier is order to get up that hill and he knows he faces a good chance of dying when carrying out that order..he still needs to do it or face UCMJ charges and possibly lose his freedom and be put into military jail. A policeman who in the same situation decides not to storm the hill would just be fired, in a worse case scenario...he is still a free man.


    I think its a slap in the face to military officers to call policemen "police OFFICERS" ...

    just my 2 cents ... its in respect to actual officers who can be ordered to really put their life on the line and who must

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    OKC, OK
    Posts
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post

    One definition of OFFICER is a military officer ... and this is what cops want you to equate them with
    And here's more definitions of officer:

    of·fi·cer
    [aw-fuh-ser, of-uh-]
    noun
    1. a person who holds a position of rank or authority in the army, navy, air force, or any similar organization, especially one who holds a commission.
    2. a member of a police department or a constable.
    3. a person licensed to take full or partial responsibility for the operation of a merchant ship or other large civilian ship; a master or mate.
    4. a person appointed or elected to some position of responsibility or authority in the government, a corporation, a society, etc.
    5. (in some honorary orders) a member of any rank except the lowest.

    But, I suppose that an officer of a corporation is, in some minds ALSO a military equivalent, right?

    (Oh, and this is from dictionary.com ... just so ya know )

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,156
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    The term "police OFFICER" ... I find offense to.

    One definition of OFFICER is a military officer ... and this is what cops want you to equate them with
    A police officer is commissioned to enforce the law, hence he holds a commission similar to a military commissioned officer. This beggars their rank structure. Some have suggested that sworn officer of the law might change their mindset.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by joanie View Post
    the proposed law also requires that physical contact be made.

    So if I was to touch a cop's fist with my face, or their boots with my stomach while laying on the ground, I'd go to jail?...
    No, you would not. READ the bill. There is nothing new that has been made illegal by this law. There is now another charge that can be brought if YOU kick, strike, punch, etc. an officer.

    I recommend that you stop seeing threats where there are none. You have damaged your reputation here a lot lately. You might want to strive to be seen as more rational than that.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by papa bear View Post
    I do believe EYE, he may be a deck but he does present good points . i see this as a way to intimidate the public more. how many LEOs will use this as an excuse to harass citizens? especially those that don't know the difference. how many times will a LEO bump into someone to beat them down?

    this law does a few things. it makes the politician look like he is doing something. it gives the LEO another weapon to use. if i am not mistaking it makes a felon out of someone that only crosses a LEO. another felon that can't own a gun
    Nope. You have to strike him in some fashion. And you have to do it for one of the motives listed in the law. That last part will make this nigh onto impossible to successfully prosecute folks under this law.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    The term "police OFFICER" ... I find offense to.

    One definition of OFFICER is a military officer ... and this is what cops want you to equate them with

    But there is difference between a policeman and a soldier. If a soldier is order to get up that hill and he knows he faces a good chance of dying when carrying out that order..he still needs to do it or face UCMJ charges and possibly lose his freedom and be put into military jail. A policeman who in the same situation decides not to storm the hill would just be fired, in a worse case scenario...he is still a free man.


    I think its a slap in the face to military officers to call policemen "police OFFICERS" ...

    just my 2 cents ... its in respect to actual officers who can be ordered to really put their life on the line and who must
    You are flat wrong. An officer is someone who holds an office (not the room, the position). There are a lot of office-holders, aka officers, other than military officers.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by joanie View Post
    All I care about is getting the truth out to as many as possible, I can only present truth, I can't make you believe it, if you want to believe the police's lies, then I'm a criminal anyway acording to you and by responding to what I say, you are assoeating with a criminal, that makes you a criminal by assoseation. I know I didn't spell that right but what do you expect from a criminal?
    You are not presenting truth. Your post presented a complete falsehood.

    You are not regularly demonstrating a grounding in reality. You did not want to hear that, but it needs to be said. I hope you choose to do something about that.

    Moving on.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    You are flat wrong. An officer is someone who holds an office (not the room, the position). There are a lot of office-holders, aka officers, other than military officers.
    you are free to disagree but it is you who are wrong; sorry charlie

  22. #22
    Regular Member rushcreek2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs. CO
    Posts
    924
    IF - this proposed law is ALREADY LAW....why ?

    TO ENCOMPASS THOSE LITTLE SET-TO'S between COPS and the citizenry WHEREIN " ANNOYANCE " has yet to be codified.

    Make no mistake about it - the KEY WORD in this bill is " annoying ". The rest of the language is fluff designed to obscure the "annoying" element.

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by rushcreek2 View Post
    IF - this proposed law is ALREADY LAW....why ?

    TO ENCOMPASS THOSE LITTLE SET-TO'S between COPS and the citizenry WHEREIN " ANNOYANCE " has yet to be codified.

    Make no mistake about it - the KEY WORD in this bill is " annoying ". The rest of the language is fluff designed to obscure the "annoying" element.
    No, it is not a key word, let alone the key word. It is one of a list of motives that will have to be proved in order for the charge to stick. It isn't even part of the list of actions that constitute crimes. Remove the list of motives (of which annoying is only one), and it actually becomes easier to convict someone under this new law.

    Again, this law defines no new actions as crimes. If you take an action (that is already a crime) AND you are motivated by a desire to annoy the cop (or a few other motives), then an additional charge can be heaped on you, apart from the charge for breaking an existing law.

  24. #24
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    So basically what they're doing is creating another thought crime, just like any other hate crime.
    If your actions are motivated by wanting to annoy a cop, why are they treated more harshly than the same exact actions motivated only by wanting to harm the cop?
    Punishment should be for actions, not thoughts.

    Quote Originally Posted by eye95
    [to joanie, Grove City, OH]
    You are not regularly demonstrating a grounding in reality. You did not want to hear that, but it needs to be said. I hope you choose to do something about that.
    +1

  25. #25
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    The "OR" that you highlighted is between "POLICE OFFICER" and "PEACE OFFICER." It has nothing to do with the actions, but is instead making the actions a crime if the target is either a police officer or a peace officer. I have no idea what the difference is between those two in NY.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    There is slight differences in Authority. It actually is quite complex from reading the NY Penal law and seems to be more a function of the agency then of power...

    However from reading the appropriate laws it appears to me that a Police Officer by default has the power to carry firearms, make warrantless arrests, using deadly force, etc etc etc

    a Peace Officer appears to have these powers, but the powers only apply by default when on duty, and the agency employing the officer has the power to determine if the officer can exercise off duty powers or even some on duty powers (basically an ala carte cop where the agency gets to pick and choose which powers to afford a peace officer)

    For instance look at this wikipedia page..
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enf...nment_agencies

    It appears in New York city there are about a dozen different law enforcement agencies belonging to several city departments, but that most of them like the Sanitation police and homeless service police are armed only with a baton (no firearm) but have full police powers such as the ability to write tickets and make arrests. also it appears new york's auxilary police officers are considered peace officers and that under an emergency declared by the mayor that the firefighters can become peace officers temporarily. what a strange set-up.
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •