Annoy a Cop? Get Arrested.

[bainsidhe]

A bill going through NY state legislature would make it a crime to harass or annoy police, punishable by up to 4 years in prison.

Link: http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/an...to-do-the-time

Please tell me I'm not the only one with concerns about this. What constitutes harassing and/or annoying behavior to the police? Basically, don't question the officer or stand up for your rights, because you could get arrested & convicted. There's been some scandals with the police around here, so I can't help but worry how and when this law would be applied.

[Ladeeda]

The bill should be more specific. What is annoying is very subjective. I get annoyed by people spitting in public, but don't think they should be arrested for it. It should be limited to "harassment", and that term should be strictly defined.

[monkeyboy]

The bill is actually fairly specific, "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." If the law just spoke about harassing or annoying an officer I would be concerned, but the fact that you actually have to attack the officer means it can't be used against those who "question an officer" or "stand up for their rights". It does seem somewhat redundant given that the behavior needed to invoke this law seems to already be covered by laws prohibiting assault and battery.

[Gravekeeper]

Sounds like they're making it an offence to be a physically abrasive asshole to a police officer to provoke a response you can whine about. -.-

[Greenday]

It's a very straightforward, no BS law. No physically intimidating cops to prevent them from properly doing their jobs. I don't see how anyone can have a problem with this.

[Andara Bledin]

Don't they already have laws on the books about assault?

Seems to me that all of what's mentioned falls pretty clearly in that camp, doesn't it?

[Greenday]

Don't they already have laws on the books about assault?

Seems to me that all of what's mentioned falls pretty clearly in that camp, doesn't it?

Yes it's illegal to assault a peace officer. But this covers stuff that really isn't assault and is more like harassment.

[Andara Bledin]

But it specifically requires physical contact, and as soon as you engage in physical contact you've hit assault, haven't you?

[Duelist925]

But it specifically requires physical contact, and as soon as you engage in physical contact you've hit assault, haven't you?

Yes, but in some cases it seems silly to charge with assault--repeated poking in the chest, for instance. Physical, annoying as fuck, disrespectful, and often intended to be intimidating.

[lordlundar]

Yes, but in some cases it seems silly to charge with assault--repeated poking in the chest, for instance. Physical, annoying as fuck, disrespectful, and often intended to be intimidating.

Also ambiguous. Judges have ruled either way and it does depend on the judge. This makes it more definitive.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

I think the point here is just closing a loophole. I'll left field this, but that is generally the attributed cause of the actual Boston massacre. Especially with services like twitter, it's very easy to forward footage of a cop beating someone without what precipitated it which is usually does not rise to the level of assault but is persistent and aggravating enough that it's designed to cause a response.

It's generally "I'm not touching you" behavior. As long as the law is specific, I'm ok with it. Call a cop whatever you want, but if you're going to push, shove, or otherwise make an officer of the peace fear for his safety, I want him or her to be able to arrest.

[Andara Bledin]

So, we're fixing a problem with enforcement of existing laws by writing more laws, then?

Unwanted physical contact is assault. Full stop.

That some people don't agree is a problem that should be dealt with by fixing the laws we already have as opposed to writing whole new ones that put a class of people who are already viewed with suspicion by a large percentage of the populace above the rest.

[s_stabeler]

hmmm, I can see a potewntially serious problem. Say a cop comes to your hosue to search it- no warrant. You stand in the doorway to stop them coming in. ( which is your right to w/o them having a warrant. It's not the point if you shoud or not) The cop tries to push past you ( also potentially having the right to, if they can prove they had reason to believe evidence was being destroyed) you try to stop them by pushing back (or anything that causes a part of your body to coime inot contact with the police officer. Now, that could be used to justify a charge under this law (He claims to be performing his official duty of investigating crime, you annoyed him by stopping him, and you subjected him to physical contact. It meets the elements of the law.)

in short, it's still got problkems with it.

[draco664]

...but the fact that you actually have to attack the officer means it can't be used against those who "question an officer" or "stand up for their rights".

Given that police routinely arrest people for resisting arrest, I don't think this law changes anything except the punishment for raising your arms to defend your head against them smashing it in with a nightstick.

[Fire_on_High]

Yes, but in some cases it seems silly to charge with assault--repeated poking in the chest, for instance. Physical, annoying as fuck, disrespectful, and often intended to be intimidating.

Who cares if it's silly? If they're guilty, and they clearly are, black and white, by the strict definition, you can nail their ass to the wall fair and square.