» NY Senate passes Bill that would make annoying a cop a felony Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind! NY Senate passes Bill that would make annoying a cop a felony Bill would basically allow police to arrest based on their own subjective impulses Adan Salazar Infowars.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, 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 as justification for their arrest of citizen journalists like We Are Change’s Luke Rudkowski, who routinely gets into verbal confrontations with police, or our own intrepid Infowars reporter Dan Bidondi, who it could be argued “harassed” authorities at the Boston Marathon press conferences. In addition, the bill virtually welcomes and protects police who would provoke citizens into any kind of verbal spat, as, under the vague language of the bill, any “harassment,” verbal or not, can be deemed unlawful. RT also noted 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.
If there are any patriots left in NY State, my guess is we shall soon know the answer. It hasn't passed yet so they have the opportunity to come to their sense. Wait, wha ..? Nevermind, we are talking politicians in the great state with the 7 round mag issue. Is there a Lexington NY?
"HE OR SHE STRIKES, SHOVES, KICKS OR OTHERWISE SUBJECTS SUCH PERSON TO PHYSICAL CONTACT." If I read this right there is no recourse for "dehumanizing stares" or simple "annoying" You must make physical contact. And that crosses the line in my book. I don't really see a problem with this law. I worked in security and bail enforcement and can tell you that someone cussing being belligerent etc is one thing. I can ignore that, but you "STRIKE,SHOVE,KICK, OR OTHERWISE SUBJECT me TO PHYSICAL CONTACT" and I'm taking you down. This just prevents the resulting lawsuits for "Police Brutality". If it is abused, sue the crap out of them. But if you made physical contact then your lucky it is LEO because private security like I worked would return that contact ten fold!
I agree with Minuteman, and I don't really see the need of this new law. The action of striking, shoving, kicking, or making other physical contact with anyone, never mind a police officer, has always been subject to the charge of assault. It seems like they already have enough laws on the books without this one. I suppose the main effect of this bill would be to elevate a misdemeanor assault to a felony assault.
The 'physical contact' part bothers me a bit. What about a light tap on the shoulder? That's physical contact.
Who determines "light" regarding a tap? What does "reasonable" mean in lib context? Some things are all or none, like pregnancy.
First, sorry for the yelling, but I copied and pasted from the bill. They yelled, I'm just repeating it. " 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." The reason this is such a bad bill is because it is too broad and there is too much that is up for interpretation. If I should have known someone is a police officer, I intend to annoy them, and I subject them to physical contact, I'm a felon. So if I jump out from behind a tree and startle a police officer and he trips and falls, I have alarmed him and subjected him to physical contact. This is a bill that is written to be abused.
And what says the 'officer' can't just say, 'The perp struck me so i tasered his ass.' Is shaking hands physical contact? how about if the individual is 10 yards away observing the officer, the officer encroaches upon said individual, the officer invades the personal space of the individual causing them to backup, tripping over something and in natural reaction reaches out and grasps the officers arm? Yep, someone is going into the pokie. Stupid law, stupid people.
As pointed out physical contact is assault. Scaring someone and them tripping over something doesn't constitute "physical contact". That would be a very easy case to win if it went to court. I think what the framers of this had in mind, was the grey area between "assault" and "Physical contact". When I worked security/ bouncer I had a lot of instances where someone would intentionally bump into me, hard. Get between me and whoever I was confronting and try to push or bump me back. Is that assault? Wouldn't fly in a court. They didn't raise a hand, didn't throw a punch. It was a crowded arena, bar etc. But they knew and I knew that it was intentional and meant to "HARASS, ANNOY, THREATEN OR ALARM..." So having been there done that, I still have to say that I find no problem with this law. I don't think it was intended to give LEO's carte blanche to just slap cuffs on anyone who looks at them wrong. Can the law be abused? Of course, like most laws. But like I said previously, if they abuse it sue the crap out of them.
