NY Senate Passes Law That Makes It A Felony TO 'Annoy' A Cop - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15

Thread: NY Senate Passes Law That Makes It A Felony TO 'Annoy' A Cop

  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by wolf_fire View Post
    Hey dc dalton... the link to the actual bill was in the first paragraph of the article you posted. Here's the text... it's pretty cut and dry as to what annoy means:

    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.
    AGGRAVATED HARASSMENT OF A POLICE OFFICER OR PEACE OFFICER IS A CLASS
    E FELONY.
    S 2. This act shall take effect on the first of November next succeed-
    ing the date on which it shall have become a law.

    So according to this... annoy has to be accompanied with physical contact. No contact, no annoying. Imagine that 8 posters commented before someone actual read the OP's article with the law in it.
    I believe that may have been the intent, however, it's so poorly written it could be interpreted otherwise. It also says you "should reasonably know", so they don't have to be in uniform.

    Let's say I'm walking down the street and accidentally bump into a detective in plain clothes, but wearing a badge. He's having a bad day, so he gets annoyed and misinterprets an accident as purposeful. By definition, I've now committed a felony.

    Not only that, but four years and felony? Thieves, drug dealers, and even some types of sex offenders get less penalty. If it was really that bad, there already is charge called "assaulting a police officer" for physical contact situations.

    It's too ambiguous, subjective, too open to abuse, and the penalty too severe.
    You can have good intentions and not be right.

  2.   
  3. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    7,733
    Wait a minute. Don't any of you read? Every single person on this thread lives in a state where aggravated harassment is a crime. This is not a law about being an annoying person, this law creates the crime of aggravated harassment of a police officer. The word annoyance is used only as the intent of the physical contact. There are laws in your state protecting you from being harassed by me so why should a LEO be subjected to it the same protections?
    .
    The wording in the law is below... from the senate bill... read it! Check your own state laws and then you can all provide an educated opinion.
    .
    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.
    .
    You believe you should be allowed to physically harass a LEO engaged in the course of his/her official duties? Is it OK if I strike, shove or kick any of you? What would you do if I physically strike you? Read the wording. Read the bill. Then go check your own state laws. You will likely find this same law has been on the books for many years.
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

  4. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    7,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Bigcarlover View Post
    Let's say I'm walking down the street and accidentally bump into a detective in plain clothes, but wearing a badge. He's having a bad day, so he gets annoyed and misinterprets an accident as purposeful. By definition, I've now committed a felony.
    Incorrect. That is casual contact, well defined under the law and found in case law in all states. This is only a crime if the LEO is engaged in his official duties, his identity is clear or announced, you physically contacted him and the contact was with intent to harass, alarm or annoy. Presently this constitutes obstruction as well.
    .
    In S.C. there are similarly crazy laws in the state code as indicated below:
    .
    SECTION 16-17-430 - makes it a misdemeanor to communicate with anyone (including LE) with intent to annoy them.
    SECTION 16-17-520 - subjects those who interrupt a religious service with up to one year in jail.
    SECTION 16-17-570 - subjects those who interfere with a police call-box to a chain gang run by a penitentiary (I kid you not).
    SECTION 16-7-160 - imposes up to three-years in jail to those who light a "stink bomb" (I kid you not).
    .
    We're ALL living in a police state.
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

  5. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by BC1 View Post
    Wait a minute. Don't any of you read? Every single person on this thread lives in a state where aggravated harassment is a crime. This is not a law about being an annoying person, this law creates the crime of aggravated harassment of a police officer. The word annoyance is used only as the intent of the physical contact. There are laws in your state protecting you from being harassed by me so why should a LEO be subjected to it the same protections?
    So if there is already a law that protects citizens, why doesn't it protect a LEO? Is there law enforcement exclusion?
    You can have good intentions and not be right.

  6. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    7,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Bigcarlover View Post
    So if there is already a law that protects citizens, why doesn't it protect a LEO? Is there law enforcement exclusion?
    When interfering with official duties one can be charged with obstruction of governmental administration. When attacking an officer one can be charged with assault. But when poking, shoving or otherwise harassing an officer there was no middle ground. Some offenses don't fall into either offense. There are also differences in remedies. In standard harassment an order of protection is a remedy. This is not available to a LEO against members of the general public. In S.C. I find that the law doesn't differentiate. There is one charge that can be equally applied to everyone.
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast