Piss of the Police in NY go to jail for 4 years.

[txinvestigator]

Did not get a donut
HARASSMENT

Did not say "All hail bloomber"
HARASSMENT

Talk back about actual law
HARASSMENT

Talk to educate the LEO on the right law
HARASSMENT

Cruiser passes by and you dont say "Hail bloomie" by raising hand
HARASSMENT

Black, wearing a hoodie with hands in pocket and gold teeths
HARASSMENT

Reserve your rights
HARASSMENT

Did you READ the law? None of that is a violation of the law.

Wow, people.

 

[Das Jared]

So you have nothing that would make sense, so instead try to turn it around.

You thing it should be lawful to kick, strike, etc., a cop who is performing his job? On second thought, outrageous is an appropriate term, but for YOUR thinking that should be OK.

Good grief.

Yup, totally think that should be ok. Pompous idiot.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Stukaman]

What if its wrong what the cop is doing? Who makes that call that's my issue if your being arrested and your rights violated I say fight back your screwed anyway!

Now if you do this you deserve what you get make sense?

 

[Shorts]

Yup, totally think that should be ok. Pompous idiot.

Outright name calling is ok on TGT now?

 

[txinvestigator]

If annoy is only used in the context of a physical contact, I don't see an issue with it. If annoy is going to be used in a more broad context, without physical contact, then folks should take notice. I'd be asking for a statute definition of "annoy".

I agree. The law requires contact to have a violation. There is no issue here.

A scenario off the top of my head, a bystander using their phone cam to capture video of an arrest or altercation and the LEOs get 'annoyed'. If 'annoy' applies only to physical contact (as from the text quoted it looks like it does) there is no issue. If annoyed is defined as a non-contact judgement call, well there might be something to think about.

Again, agreed. Clearly a violation requires contact. If your intent is to annoy, and you make contact, then it is a violation.

Another scenario, LEOs making an arrest of a drunk during some street celebration or parade. Then the drunk's drunk buddies and girlfriend are encircling, touching, grabbing, strong-arming, poking, slapping, or thumping the LEO to distract him/her from tending to the arrest at hand, then there's an application I see fulfilling "annoy" in physical context.

More agree. And that should be unlawful behavior, wouldn't you agree?

BTW, I appreciate the reasonable discourse.

 

[Stukaman]

I agree. The law requires contact to have a violation. There is no issue here.

Again, agreed. Clearly a violation requires contact. If your intent is to annoy, and you make contact, then it is a violation.



More agree. And that should be unlawful behavior, wouldn't you agree?

BTW, I appreciate the reasonable discourse.

That all right there is something I can agree with!

 

[Shorts]

What if its wrong what the cop is doing? Who makes that call that's my issue if your being arrested and your rights violated I say fight back your screwed anyway!

I ran across something recently, check it out.

In tossing out the case, Richmond Judge Eugene Cheek said the officer’s action, as seen in the video, brought into question the officer’s credibility. Dotson’s attorney argued his client had the right to resist an “unlawful arrest.”

Judge clears man in ‘Shamrock the Block’ case | WTVR.com


It also bears some relevance to the OP as well (in my scenario examples I mentioned in my post. In fact, it was the video I was thinking about as I typed). I have no position on this particular scenario (the video is confusing and I have no clue what the facts are). Just put it up in reply to Jon's inquiry to the topic of 'unlawful arrest' because I had just ran across the link it in the last day or so and the two were related. I don't envy the position the LEOs were put in. But the guy was still arrested and had to go through the process to get his day in court.

 

[txinvestigator]

Outright name calling is ok on TGT now?

No. As with some others, when he has no logical argument but refuses to back off of an unsupportable and even unreasonable opinion or statement he resorts to name calling. Classic case of the child ego state driving him.

Notice he also referred to "we" in post 11 in an attempt to make it seems like he has the support of others. In fact, he had no idea if anyone else read the law or not.

Cannot wait to see what intelligent use of verbal attacks he makes now.

 

[txinvestigator]

What if its wrong what the cop is doing? Who makes that call that's my issue if your being arrested and your rights violated I say fight back your screwed anyway!

Now if you do this you deserve what you get make sense?

The problem with using force to resist an arrest or search is that the officer may have information you are not aware of, or you may be mistaken. In Texas , it is explicitly not legal to use force to resist an arrest or search being made by a peace officer. There is an exception if, before you offer ANY resistance, the officer uses more force then necessary.

Remember, that level of force will later be determined by a judge or jury. Your belief is not the standard used.

 

[Stukaman]

Fair enough TXI :-)

 

[txinvestigator]

Fair enough TXI :-)

 

[Stukaman]

Except that I refuse to be hauled to the gulag for no reason other than being a patriot that's my issue and point with this. I'm not very good and expressing what I think in a good manner.

 

[txinvestigator]

Except that I refuse to be hauled to the gulag for no reason other than being a patriot that's my issue and point with this. I'm not very good and expressing what I think in a good manner.

I am not sure what that means... can you give an example?

 

[Stukaman]

Not in modern America that I know of was thinking more along the lines of the Gestapo and NKVD those sorts of examples. I completely agree that cops shouldn't be harassed they aren't my friends but I'm not out to make life hard on them either. Shorts example of arresting someone for DUI is an excellent example of why the law is good I can just see it possibly being abused.

 

[rushthezeppelin]

So you have nothing that would make sense, so instead try to turn it around.

You thing it should be lawful to kick, strike, etc., a cop who is performing his job? On second thought, outrageous is an appropriate term, but for YOUR thinking that should be OK.

Good grief.

Considering allot of cops call assault when the suspects face beats up the cops first I don't like this one iota. Not to mention isn't this law redundant? I thought assaulting an officer was already an offense...

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

 

[Shorts]

Considering allot of cops call assault when the suspects face beats up the cops first I don't like this one iota. Not to mention isn't this law redundant? I thought assaulting an officer was already an offense...

From this memo in the link it looks like the bill was created to amend (upgrade) the penalty for physically contacting an LEO. The text of the bill is also in the link for inquiring minds.

S2402-2013 - NY Senate Open Legislation - Establishes the crime of aggravated harassment of a police officer or peace officer - New York State Senate


BILL NUMBER:S2402

TITLE OF BILL: An act to amend the penal law, in relation to aggravated harassment of peace officers or police officers

PURPOSE: To establish the crime of aggravated harassment of a police officer or peace officer and make such crime a class E felony.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS: Section one amends the penal law by adding a new section 240.33 establishing the crime of aggravated harassment of a police officer or peace officer. Section two is the effective date.

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

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: 2011-12 S. 2322 Passed Senate/A. 8099 Codes Committee.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This act shall take effect on the first of November next succeeding the date on which it shall have become a law.



ETA: my question about the word 'annoy' looks like an aside; the word annoy may have always been present in the law, likely a definition already exists. Essentially that conversation is moot if the purpose of this bill is merely to upgrade the penalty of an existing law.


Basically we need to compare the old law to this new law to see what the real difference is. Anyone want to do the footwork on that??

 

[txinvestigator]

Considering allot of cops call assault when the suspects face beats up the cops first I don't like this one iota. Not to mention isn't this law redundant? I thought assaulting an officer was already an offense...

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

Allot [sic] ? How many, what percentage and how often? What is "face beats up"?

I realize it seems like I am picking, but I am reading an awful lot of speculation and drama without much substance. I am just looking for quantified information.

 

[rushthezeppelin]

Allot [sic] ? How many, what percentage and how often? What is "face beats up"?

I realize it seems like I am picking, but I am reading an awful lot of speculation and drama without much substance. I am just looking for quantified information.

Not saying percentage wise its allot but we certainly have seen police brutality with that excuse. Any amount of that is too much in my book. And to answer your question... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ington-police-officers-didnt-hear-orders.html... that is how a face beats up a fist.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

 

[Shorts]

I think we've established that even if one is wronged by LEOs, they still have to go through the legal process, the whole she-bang and get to the courts. Is it what we want, to get beat up and still have to go through rigamarole of the process? No. I think we all want it not to happen in the first place.

Why belabor the issue? I'm sure we all agree police brutality is wrong, the court process is long and expensive, and no one wants to be on the receiving end of it.

 

[Das Jared]

I have a logical argument. Just no logic on your part to understand. So it will not be wasted on someone who is all about a police state. Im done here. Good day.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk 2