About That “Police State” Thing . . . .
There’s been a good deal in the press lately about the government collecting phone data on US citizens. Some have even used the term “police state”.
Well, if you’re planning a visit to New York any time soon, you might want to watch your lip. Especially if you’re naturally a bit of a smartass.
The NY Senate has approved a bill making (among other things) “annoying” an on-duty cop a felony. The bill is now being sent to the State Assembly.
Category: Politics
Well I can take New York off my “to annoy list”.
Not that I make a habit of annoying police officers, but that bill is reason number 258 why I won’t go to that state.
This is just getting ridiculous….and frankly, it scares me. They want “annoying” a police officer to be a FELONY?!
“At a time when shocking incidents of disrespect and outright confrontation are at an all-time high..”
Making “disrespect” a felony doesn’t earn alot of respect.
That want stand up to a freedom of speech challenge, but who has the money for that?
I always thought an interesting area study to discover how so many otherwise normal Germans could enable the Brownshirts. I’d like to thank the citizens of New York for being a case study.
To be fair, the law actually requires physical contact – not just being a “bit of a smartass.”
http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S2402-2013
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.
Are they gonna give a clear definition of “annoy”? So, you know, it could be fairly argued in court? Or will it be like some other vague laws they’ve passed lately: abused by some cops (in NYC) and ignored by the rest? And never mind that it clearly violates that liberal Holy of Holies, the 1st Amendment…
Hmmm. May have to rethink my habit of waving at the local constabulary at their speed traps just in case this catches on around the country. Wouldn’t want them to misunderstand the intent behind that friendly wave.
I was under the impression hitting a cop was already a crime, must be one of those “we need laws to enforce laws” things, that will be selectively enforced…
#7: All subject to the arresting officer’s definition of “strikes, shoves, kicks, or otherwise subjects such person to physical contact.”
Maybe if they reformed the law so that folks could believe in the law and that police officers are actually there to serve the public. But that would probably violate a number of union rules and everyone know the unions are superior to the law.
So you’re telling me if I drop my pants and bend over and grab cheeks and point said rectal area at a cop, I’m in deep doo doo??
/probably get me for public indecency before beating me senseless.
gitarcarver: I’m pretty sure unwanted physical contact falls under the general title of “assault” or “battery”. Not positive about NY, but I think in most places assaulting a police officer is already a felony.
Great, there goes my chance to tell the staties there, “Bad cop! No donut!”
I wonder if not submitting to sodomy at gunpoint fits the definition of “annoying”.
http://rt.com/usa/officer-rape-new-york-964/
(yea yea…I know it’s RT..)
Why would anyone want to annoy a police officer? While I do respect them, I avoid them if possible. If it’s not possible to avoid them, then I’m polite and patient — mainly because they can arrest me if I’m not. Why would I want to annoy one — just to see how messed up my day can get?
@Chip, based on the story I posted earlier, you might get a bit more than a public indecency charge….
#9 OWB
It depends on how many fingers you’re using to wave with.
So; would saying “screw you, flatfoot” fit the definition?
Because I was planning on saying that to the Master Chief if I ever got to NY :). Now I’ll have to bring donuts, instead.
Pinto, you assume that what they define as “annoying” is the same thing that normal rational people define as “annoying”. It’s purposefully ambiguous and will probably be used by prosecutors as a freebie for tacking on an additional felony charge. Or in cases of egregious abuse of power, adding an additional felony after an assbeating.
Physical assault of a police officer has always been a felony in most every state. Why the need for a new law?
@11 but that’s always been the case even with simple breach of the peace laws…it’s what the LEO decides is breach of the peace at that moment….
If you’re an asshole it’s breach of the peace, if you’re normal it’s a warning to get in your car and go home…
Problem is somewhere along the way, the LEOs stopped being able to separate the wheat from the chaff….with the us/them it gets ugly in some communities…I don’t know any of the police officers in my neighborhood. I know the chief, I know the detectives…a lot of the patrolmen don’t stay in the same neighborhoods anymore…that seems a bad idea to me.
@20 or the first charge they drop in a plea deal, like the mandatory 1 year in jail charge for having an unregistered gun in Massachusetts…almost every criminal gets charged with it when they have a gun, but that charge gets dropped an awful lot to get a guilty plea on the other charges…
VOV: don’t think “breach of peace” is generally a felony. Felony convictions have much longer-term consequences than do misdemeanors. In some places, certain rights are permanently forfeited.
I’ve got no problem with laws against assaulting or interfering with the police during the performance of their official duties. Most jurisdictions already have those.
I do have a problem with an ill-defined law that makes “annoying” a police officer (whatever the hell that means) a felony. I also have a problem with laws that do nothing but duplicate laws already on the books.
“Problem is somewhere along the way, the LEOs stopped being able to separate the wheat from the chaff….with the us/them it gets ugly in some communities”
Exactly. I live in an very low-crime suburb where the cops don’t have a lot of REAL work to do so they make a habit of harassing law-abiding citizens instead. I lost my respect for them a LONG time ago after experiencing how they “protect and serve” my kids. I’ve met far too many cops who enjoy their power over people. On the other hand, almost all of the sheriffs I’ve met are great guys who truly want to help people.
I avoid cops at all costs.
As for New York, I’ve been there several times and while I would have liked to see Ellis Island, I don’t ever plan on going back.
My grandfather was the sheriff of a rural NC county for 20 years and I have several friends from school who are in law enforcement-I have no reason to disrespect cops. However, there is at least a sizable minority who, seemingly, struggle to do a difficult job well, who all too often resort to intimidation when dealing with citizens and who abuse their authority to the extent that the citizenry are losing respect for them. Something seriously needs to change in our law-enforcement culture.
Hondo,
I am not trying to defend the law, only to say that it is more than saying something “smartass” to the officer which is what I took from the original post.
As to the “assault” part, you may very well be correct. But there may be a grey area this law is trying to close.
Say for example that your friend is being arrested and you step in to try and help the friend. (Bad move, but you never know what will happen in the heat of the moment.)
According to my local LEO’s you could be charged with obstructing, and if they went to arrest you, resisting arrest. You could not be arrested for assaulting a police officer.
Maybe the intent of this law is to take that obstructing with light physical contact up to the realm of a felony assault.
I don’t like that idea and think it is misguided, but I am trying to figure out the rational for this new law.
And thank you for your civil response.
@24 Hondo I get your point my friend, and you are right BOP is a misdemeanor and depending on jurisdiction might only be a Class B or C at that…my response was geared towards the “it’s the cop’s interpretation” aspect of the comments which has always been true. They interpret on scene and arrest accordingly….might not be prosecuted.
It appears that shoving or touching must be involved which as you state is already a crime…it’s just another example of a lawmaker pretending to do something useful when he’s not actually doing anything at all….
@ #27: You well may be on to something with that line of thinking. It is the only way this makes sense to me – that assault on a police/peace officer may have carried no more penalty than any other assault. This may just be to kick it up a degree. If so, that’s OK by me.
Who knows.
gitarcarver: your LEO friends are correct. While assault on a LEO in NY state is a felony, NY law apparently requires “serious physical injury” for it to be prosecutable as such (S 120.08):
http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article120.htm#p120.08
I did not know that.
Without such injury, the prosecutable charge would indeed apparently be Obstruction (S 195.05) – a misdemeanor:
http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article195.htm#p195.05
You folks in NY have some weird-ass laws. (smile)
But I still have a problem with this new one as-written. A better solution IMO would be to re-write the existing obstruction law to specify that any knowing physical interference with a LEO in the performance of his/her official duties constitutes a low-level felony and leave out the “annoying” language.
After reading it, it’s not what I thought. Generally, verbally annoying a cop protected free speech. Those waters get muddy quickly, though.
My state has two forms of obstruction. Misdemeanor and felony. Running from the cops or interfering in a non violent water is a misdemeanor. Fighting, battery, anything that injures, is a felony. Going hands on with the cop, in other words.
This sounds like NY was trying to do that, but in their own jacked up way.
This sounds like NY was trying to do that, but in their own jacked up way.
Like trying to promote a healthy diet by banning fatties from 24 oz drinks….instead of offering a discount to a fitness club
OWB and Hondo,
I agree with you both. The law could and should have been written to address the real issue and to address it within existing law, rather than writing a new law.
The “annoy” part is so subjective and to make something a felony strictly on the level of maturity or even whether the officer is having a good day or not (and therefore be more likely to be annoyed) is, in my opinion, reckless and ridiculous.
I am not a “tin foil hat” person, but I can honestly see the following couple of scenarios playing out:
A group of people have assembled to protest something. A cop in uniform tells them to step back. The crowd responds in a loud manner. The cop steps forward and there is contact with a member of the crowd. Felony charges result.
Or a person is filming an incident or an arrest. The cop tells the person to move back because they are interfering. The person is not close to the arrest and does not move. The cop says the person is interfering. The person does not move. The cop steps forward at the same time the person filming shuffles their feet. There is contact. Felony charges result.
In my opinion, that’s nuts but I can see that playing out.
It is a crazy law with no perceivable benefits, in my opinion.
This country is slowly becoming a “TSA State.”
Annoy them?
How about we promise them – not threaten, mind you, just inform – that if they take any actions which WE deem illegal, unlawful (not the same), or just plain unnecessary that we will see to it they are punished as the law allows.
Which law, then, is the question. But remember, self-defense is, de jure and de facto, a lawful and appropriate response to one who threatens life and liberty. Liberty includes defense of property, for what should be, to any one with basic comprehension skills, obvious reasons. And recall the official government-backed justification for damn near anything they do, a la Patriot Act, that “The best defense is a good offense.” Criminals, both ordinary civilian and hired help government actors, should no longer be granted Get Out Of Jail Free cards.
Just saying . . .
@#18:
I do believe the Supreme Court has already ruled – thereby setting precedent and enshrining into law – that waving of The One Finger salute and speaking the verbal nomenclature of said salute out loud is constitutionally protected speech, and that all police agencies are deemed to know the law, thus precluding their use of any excuses attendant thereto.
To wit:
Flipping Off Police Officers Constitutional, Federal Court Affirms
January 03, 2013
WASHINGTON — A police officer can’t pull you over and arrest you just because you gave him the finger, a federal appeals court declared Thursday.
In a 14-page opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled that the “ancient gesture of insult is not the basis for a reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation or impending criminal activity.”
John Swartz and his wife Judy Mayton-Swartz had sued two police officers who arrested Swartz in May 2006 after he flipped off an officer who was using a radar device at an intersection in St. Johnsville, N.Y. Swartz was later charged with a violation of New York’s disorderly conduct statute, but the charges were dismissed on speedy trial grounds.
A federal judge in the Northern District of New York granted summary judgement to the officers in July 2011, but the Court of Appeals on Thursday erased that decision and ordered the lower court to take up the case again.
Richard Insogna, the officer who stopped Swartz and his wife when they arrived at their destination, claimed he pulled the couple over because he believed Swartz was “trying to get my attention for some reason.” The appeals court didn’t buy that explanation, ruling that the “nearly universal recognition that this gesture is an insult deprives such an interpretation of reasonableness.”
SOURCE: HuffingtonPost (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/03/flip-off-police_n_2403563.html)
“would make it a felony to physically attack a police officer while on duty.
“My bill would make it a crime to take any type of physical action to try to intimidate a police officer. ”
Uh…isn’t that already against the law?
I don’t know where you got “annoying” from because it sounds like something reasonable to me. If there are people in Libtard York harassing cops into confrontations and distracting them while they are trying to do their job that is serious.
Follow-up to # 36. I realize that I claimed the Supreme Court made the ruling, then cited a lesser court. Therefore, this follow-up. Is Raising The Middle Finger Constitutionally Protected Free Speech? by Judge Burke posted at the American Judges Association http://blog.amjudges.org/?p=1009 The Court said, ”The nearly universal recognition that this gesture is an insult deprives such an interpretation of reasonableness. This ancient gesture of insult is not the basis for a reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation or impending criminal activity. Surely no passenger planning some wrongful conduct toward another occupant of an automobile would call attention to himself by giving the finger to a police officer. And if there might be an automobile passenger somewhere who will give the finger to a police officer as an ill-advised signal for help, it is far more consistent with all citizens’ protection against improper police apprehension to leave that highly unlikely signal without a response than to lend judicial approval to the stopping of every vehicle from which a passenger makes that gesture.” The full opinion can be found at: Swartz v. Insogna (http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/e8479425-2c60-4e31-8abb-47f0eb72a22d/1/doc/11-2846_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/e8479425-2c60-4e31-8abb-47f0eb72a22d/1/hilite/) For those who are really interested in the middle finger as a topic there is an interesting law review article by Professor Ira Robbins. The abstract is as follows: The middle finger is one of the most commonly used insulting gestures in the United States. The finger, which is used to convey a wide range of emotions, is visible on streets and highways, in schools, shopping malls, and sporting events, in courts and execution chambers, in advertisements and on magazine covers, and even on the hallowed floor of the United States Senate. Despite its ubiquity, however, as a number of recent cases demonstrate, those who use the middle finger in public run the risk of being stopped, arrested, prosecuted, fined, and even incarcerated under disorderly conduct or breach of peace statutes and ordinances. This article argues that, although most convictions are ultimately overturned on appeal, the pursuit of criminal sanctions for use of the middle finger infringes on First Amendment rights, violates fundamental principles of criminal justice,… Read more »
FatCircles0311: read the text of the bill. Gitarcarver provided it (and a link for verification) in comment 7 above.
It does include the word “annoy”, making incidental physical contact (even that initiated or provoked by the LEO) which in the opinion of the LEO is intended to “annoy” grounds for a felony arrest. That level of subjective authority in a law is a virtual guarantee that someone will abuse that authority.
I can see it now: “You see, Your Honor, I was annoyed that he made physical contact with me when I knocked him to the ground. Then I had to cuff him, which wasted my time and interfered with the execution of my duties.”
*notenoughfacepalmintheworld*
“My bill would make it a crime to take any type of physical action to try to intimidate a police officer. ”
Filming an arrest stop with your cell phone could be considered “physical action to try to intimidate a police officer”.
I guess flipping him the bird is also a felony.
@22: I know a lot of the police officers in my town, but the problem has become that most police officers don’t live in the community that they work in, anymore. I know several Minneapolis police officers and none of them even live in Minneapolis.
…because whuppin’ somebody’s ass for “resisting arrest” with no other charge wasn’t obnoxious enough.