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

[txinvestigator]

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

Jared, I would live to have discourse with you, but when you offer no argument, call me names and then take your football and go home, well, it just makes it clear you have no argument.

Please define "police state". If wanting it to be unlawful to strike, kick or make physical contact with a cop who is trying to do his job is YOUR definition of police state, then that's me.

Do YOU think it should be legal to strike or kick a cop trying to do his job? Please think before you answer. Look at what you will be saying... Don't answer something you know to be absolutely unreasonable just to spite me. You made it clear you don't like me. And believe it or not, I understand why. Don't let that dislike, hate or whatever cause you to say things that effects others opinions of your judgement.

 

[Whiskey_Rocka_Rolla]

What, exactly, is outrageous?

The words "alarm" and "annoy" in that bill are entirely too vague. Anyone can claim they were "annoyed" by something. I get annoyed when I see an idiot with the tag still hanging out of their baseball cap. If I were a cop is that enough to arrest someone over? The wording in the bill needs to be more specific, cause if you know how progressives do things, they'll use generalities like this to their fullest advantage, if and when possible.

What about "alarmed"? A honking horn can be alarming, AND annoying at the same time. Double whammie. Sorry but police officers are not under such noble authority that merely annoying them should get you a possible prison sentence.

 

[Kyle]

TI is a very reasonable dude, very consistent in argument and very straight forward, Jared. Don't mistake his angle for attacking or not understanding what you're position is. As with any argument, both sides want a clear stance from the other person. Not trying to give you hell or anything, but I think you slightly over reacted, bud.


Now I have not had many good interaction with officers. The ones that have been good, have been great... The others have been blatant abuse of power and use of intimidation when it was far from necessary. I can get into specifics, but I won't unless requested. Anyways, I agree with the law as far as making contact with an officer. Maybe it is my lack of reading comprehension, but I agree with the other as far as the law being FAR too vague with the word "annoy". I have little trust for police in general, but I give every officer I come in contact with the benefit of doubt. My personal thoughts; while an officer should absolutely have his own protection, if they are to be trusted using their judgement per the situation, we should not be stopped from using our judgement. The issue is that there is entirely too much grey area.

 

[Shorts]

The words "alarm" and "annoy" in that bill are entirely too vague. Anyone can claim they were "annoyed" by something. I get annoyed when I see an idiot with the tag still hanging out of their baseball cap. If I were a cop is that enough to arrest someone over? The wording in the bill needs to be more specific, cause if you know how progressives do things, they'll use generalities like this to their fullest advantage, if and when possible.

What about "alarmed"? A honking horn can be alarming, AND annoying at the same time. Double whammie. Sorry but police officers are not under such noble authority that merely annoying them should get you a possible prison sentence.

That was my input earlier as well (re: annoy). So, the next step to answer our questions would be to search the NY statutes and see if we can find definitions for these words.

Here's a link for starters on 'harassment': http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article240.htm#p240.25

Looking for 'annoy'....

 

[txinvestigator]

That was my input earlier as well (re: annoy). So, the next step to answer our questions would be to search the NY statutes and see if we can find definitions for these words.

Here's a link for starters on 'harassment': Article 240 - Penal Law - Offenses Against Public Order

Looking for 'annoy'....

You don't need a definition for those words. The allow requires you have to strike, kick, shove or cause physical contact with a cop in order to annoy or alarm them.

The physical contact part is what you folks are missing. Simply annoying a cop does not meet the definition. And if you do one of those things it must be your intent to annoy or alarm before you have a violation.

Look at the law.....

 

[txinvestigator]

The words "alarm" and "annoy" in that bill are entirely too vague. Anyone can claim they were "annoyed" by something. I get annoyed when I see an idiot with the tag still hanging out of their baseball cap. If I were a cop is that enough to arrest someone over? The wording in the bill needs to be more specific, cause if you know how progressives do things, they'll use generalities like this to their fullest advantage, if and when possible.

What about "alarmed"? A honking horn can be alarming, AND annoying at the same time. Double whammie. Sorry but police officers are not under such noble authority that merely annoying them should get you a possible prison sentence.

No, having the tag on your hat out is not a violation of this law. Even if you struck a cop while having your tag out, it would not be a violation.

Sorry but police officers are not under such noble authority that merely annoying them should get you a possible prison sentence

And this law does not do that.

 

[RstyShcklfrd]

Jared, I would live to have discourse with you, but when you offer no argument, call me names and then take your football and go home, well, it just makes it clear you have no argument.

Please define "police state". If wanting it to be unlawful to strike, kick or make physical contact with a cop who is trying to do his job is YOUR definition of police state, then that's me.

Do YOU think it should be legal to strike or kick a cop trying to do his job? Please think before you answer. Look at what you will be saying... Don't answer something you know to be absolutely unreasonable just to spite me. You made it clear you don't like me. And believe it or not, I understand why. Don't let that dislike, hate or whatever cause you to say things that effects others opinions of your judgement.

For the record, you did this in the thread regarding legalization of marijuana a while back, when all you could do was call people who were in favor of legalization "dopers".

But hey, it was okay then. Because, you know, you can do it and no one else can.

 

[Shorts]

You don't need a definition for those words. The allow requires you have to strike, kick, shove or cause physical contact with a cop in order to annoy or alarm them.

The physical contact part is what you folks are missing. Simply annoying a cop does not meet the definition. And if you do one of those things it must be your intent to annoy or alarm before you have a violation.

Look at the law.....

Yup, that's where I was getting...crayon...

I found no legal definition in the NY statutes. (I searched NY laws using FindLaw)

Then I googled 'ny statute definition of "annoy" and this was the 5th on the results list: PENAL CODEÂ*Â*CHAPTER 42. DISORDERLY CONDUCT AND RELATED OFFENSES


Then I searched for "annoy" in Chp 42 and here is where it appears:

(Bold text is my emphasis)

Sec. 42.07. HARASSMENT. (a) A person commits an offense if, with intent to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, or embarrass another, he:
(1) initiates communication by telephone, in writing, or by electronic communication and in the course of the communication makes a comment, request, suggestion, or proposal that is obscene;
(2) threatens, by telephone, in writing, or by electronic communication, in a manner reasonably likely to alarm the person receiving the threat, to inflict bodily injury on the person or to commit a felony against the person, a member of his family or household, or his property;
(3) conveys, in a manner reasonably likely to alarm the person receiving the report, a false report, which is known by the conveyor to be false, that another person has suffered death or serious bodily injury;
(4) causes the telephone of another to ring repeatedly or makes repeated telephone communications anonymously or in a manner reasonably likely to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, embarrass, or offend another;

(5) makes a telephone call and intentionally fails to hang up or disengage the connection;
(6) knowingly permits a telephone under the person's control to be used by another to commit an offense under this section; or
(7) sends repeated electronic communications in a manner reasonably likely to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, embarrass, or offend another.
(b) In this section:
(1) "Electronic communication" means a transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic, or photo-optical system. The term includes:
(A) a communication initiated by electronic mail, instant message, network call, or facsimile machine; and
(B) a communication made to a pager.
(2) "Family" and "household" have the meaning assigned by Chapter 71, Family Code.
(3) "Obscene" means containing a patently offensive description of or a solicitation to commit an ultimate sex act, including sexual intercourse, masturbation, cunnilingus, fellatio, or anilingus, or a description of an excretory function.
(c) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor, except that the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if the actor has previously been convicted under this section.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 2204, ch. 411, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1983; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 10, Sec. 1, eff. March 19, 1993; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 657, Sec. 1, eff. June 14, 1995; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 62, Sec. 15.02(d), eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 1222, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.

Annoy doesn't appear by itself. It always appears with "harass" and "alarm" followed by a description of a physical encounter.


Plain and simple, least in my world, don't touch the cop; don't swing first.

 

[txinvestigator]

For the record, you did this in the thread regarding legalization of marijuana a while back, when all you could do was call people who were in favor of legalization "dopers".

But hey, it was okay then. Because, you know, you can do it and no one else can.

I am sorry, Rusty, did you have something to add to this topic?

And for the record, I never called people who were in favor of legalization anything. I called dopers, dopers. And if you want to hash that out, how about you PM me, start another thread, or address me in THAT thread rather than try to derail this one? Bokay?

 

[rushthezeppelin]

You don't need a definition for those words. The allow requires you have to strike, kick, shove or cause physical contact with a cop in order to annoy or alarm them.

The physical contact part is what you folks are missing. Simply annoying a cop does not meet the definition. And if you do one of those things it must be your intent to annoy or alarm before you have a violation.

Look at the law.....

I think what some are saying is that either the cop will be ignorant of this stipulation or pull the "their face punched my fist" routine to justify the charge. Once again i know by and large it will not be used in this manner but a little more clarification in this law might help.... Or you know, they could always update the assault of officer statutes and not waste time with redundant laws.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

 

[Shorts]

I am sorry, Rusty, did you have something to add to this topic?

And for the record, I never called people who were in favor of legalization anything. I called dopers, dopers. And if you want to hash that out, how about you PM me, start another thread, or address me in THAT thread rather than try to derail this one? Bokay?

I see what you did there

 

[txinvestigator]

I think what some are saying is that either the cop will be ignorant of this stipulation or pull the "their face punched my fist" routine to justify the charge. Once again i know by and large it will not be used in this manner but a little more clarification in this law might help.... Or you know, they could always update the assault of officer statutes and not waste time with redundant laws.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

I don't think any clarification is necessary. One could say "they cops could make shit up to justify the charge" to ANY law.

This thread was first a reaction to a title rather than knowledge of the law, then it became a speculation of what the mean old cops who hate all citizens might do.

Note that had they left out the annoy and alarm language, an arrest under this law would have been EASIER. The very thing some are complaining about actually raise the law to a higher standard. By required that the contact, strike, push or shove must be done with intent to annoy, it is a harder offense to charge one under had they not placed that language there.

 

[txinvestigator]

I see what you did there

You actually made me laugh out loud. I WISH I was that clever.

 

[Shorts]

I think what some are saying is that either the cop will be ignorant of this stipulation or pull the "their face punched my fist" routine to justify the charge. Once again i know by and large it will not be used in this manner but a little more clarification in this law might help.... Or you know, they could always update the assault of officer statutes and not waste time with redundant laws.

I've given you statutes. What other clarification are you looking for? Have you provided any statutes to solve the questions you are asking or do I have to do all the work for you?

 

[M. Sage]

This is a necessary action because we can see from the rise in incidents that too many people in our society have lost the respect they need to have for a police officer.

Maybe police officers have lost that respect on their own...

 

[Whiskey_Rocka_Rolla]

You don't need a definition for those words. The allow requires you have to strike, kick, shove or cause physical contact with a cop in order to annoy or alarm them.

The physical contact part is what you folks are missing. Simply annoying a cop does not meet the definition. And if you do one of those things it must be your intent to annoy or alarm before you have a violation.

Look at the law.....

Well, I agree with the physical contact part. AFter all, police have a stressful job, and put their lives at risk every day to maintain order in sometimes chaotic circumstances, and really if I had a gun on my side (that if I were occupied with something else, a disgruntled citizen could take and use against me), I wouldn't wanna be touched either. So yeah, I guess as long as you don't touch a cop (not too much to ask), you should be fine.

But I just think they could have left the words "alarm" and "annoy" out of this, it has potential for abuse, especially in New York.

 

[TX69]

NYC is one of the oldest cities in America and we can assume that the NYPD has again the oldest police departments in America. Since TXI's description of physically going after an officer has always been on the books why the new laws today? Is this something new that was unable to be enforced in NY? Has this always been punishable by felony or is it a new way to ensure disarming of the public with that felony?

 

[TwinGlocks]

Never touch a cop

 

[RetArmySgt]

This is NY's newest attempt to arrest protesters. Cops show up and tell people to leave, they stand their ground, police begin pushing/shoving the protesters (happens frequently in NY) and then charge everyone in the group with a felony punishable by 4 years.

And if you read it again, posturing is enough to justify the arrest under this law. "...any type of physical action to try to intimidate a police officer...".

This law is strictly just a way for NY to try and push a police state, nothing else. "...every citizen needs to comply and that refusal to comply carries a penalty.”

 

[Texasjack]

I lived in NY (the state, not the city) for several freezing years. I can remember an arrest on the road that I took to work each day. A guy was stopped by the cops and apparently didn't say all the nice things they wanted to hear. So they arrested him for carrying a concealed weapon in the car. The weapon? A baseball bat. The reason it was in the car? He was on his way home from a softball game. Seriously.

His attorney managed to get the charge dropped, but the guy had to go through all the arrest and holding procedures.

So do I think NY cops could abuse an annoyance law? Oh, yeah.

Worse than that is that the so-called leaders in the state are the most likely to PUSH them to abuse the law. Tell me you don't think Mayor Bloomberg would do such a thing.

Since I no longer work there, I could give a rat's ass what NY puts into law, except that any law that successfully manages to give more power to the government tends to spread into other parts of the country (at least once it's beaten court challenges).