New York Bill: "ANNOY" a cop, get 4 years in prison.

Don't worry they said, its for you own protection they said,
they just want to make our country safer they said, if you
don't fall in line your not patriotic they said, if you don't open
your entire life to scrutiny you must be hiding something
they said, yeah well to everyone who thinks giving up your
freedoms is a good idea this is where it leads, give them
an inch and they will take the whole country......

I would much rather have my freedom than a false sense
of security.

Gee, hope they pass it in all 50 states!!! U S A! U S A! U S A!

i am studiying law and will become a lawyer next year in germany..i can only say that your law system is totally Fu**** up!

reply to post by gladtobehere


Welcome the new police state!
In australia its with your rights to tell a cop to f off, this has been tested in court.
see story

www.deathandtaxesmag.com...#-off-in-australia/

reply to post by seabag


I'm not so sure. Look at how long the people have been fighting against Stop and Frisk, to no avail. It's time for New Yorkers to vote out the authoritarians.

reply to post by sylent6


It's the private hands doing this in the first place. With more and more influence over policy they gain more and more power over law enforcement. Already the NYPD has been hired out by private banks and Wall Street firms. A private police force would only exacerbate the problem, not solve it.

Who needs FEMA camps when we have private, for profit prisons and laws that make it a felony to annoy a cop? Free labor for our Corporate Lords woohoo!

Originally posted by AthlonSavage
reply to post by gladtobehere

 

Welcome the new police state!
In australia its with your rights to tell a cop to f off, this has been tested in court.

I'm pretty sure that if a similar test happened here in the States with this proposed law, outcome would have been the same, i.e. the charge won't stick. 1st Amendment, you know.

It depends how you interpret the law, and maybe we need to read more into it. It's a bad idea (and I'm sure there may be charges related to that) to interfere with the bus driver's work. Feel free to argue that it's OK to get the bus driver distracted and annoyed.

reply to post by gladtobehere


I am happy i went to NY when i was a kid to go see the sights. back when we still had rights. I know i will NEVER go to NY again. place has become mini china. only thing missing is the black van to pull in front of people then start yanking them into the van with masks on.

Annoy? Harass? Ummm.... That's a problem with me. See, I'm thinking back to a little gathering in the park. Zuccotti park, to be precise. Some of you might remember it? Those who were a part of it, called it Occupy Wall Street. I'm thinking that by this definition? Pretty much every protester in the bunch was guilty of this at least once and downright serial offenders for most.

I guess we should just address New York police by their proper title in the future. Tovarich! or...Comrade. It's damn sure not the America I know on the other side of that state line with laws like this. It's a state that is coming to know the tyranny of authority like a personal friend. A friend who back stabbed them, repeatedly, and then laughed.

I feel for those in New York State who know how bad a spot they've found themselves at this point but flat cannot muster the resources to get out. I can think of worse places to be trapped, but it does take a bit of doing and thinking outside our national borders.

reply to post by gladtobehere


This is horrendous. It's so vague anything could be construed as harrasing them. Just want another way to beat us down like we're seeing all over the place.

reply to post by gladtobehere


22 flags 3 pages of comments and nobody read the bill. This thread is a prime example of why some people should not be allowed to vote.

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.

The plain text of the law makes clear that this law only applies to a person who, 'strikes, shoves, kicks, or otherwise subjects (a police officer) to physical contact. Everyone who posted without reading the text of the bill, which OP did have the courtesy to link to, should recall the motto of ATS and deny ignorance.

Well being that Caffeine Withdrawal is now labeled a mental disorder you can now use that defense in case you find yourself annoying a cop...

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by gladtobehere

 

22 flags 3 pages of comments and nobody read the bill. This thread is a prime example of why some people should not be allowed to vote.

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.

The plain text of the law makes clear that this law only applies to a person who, 'strikes, shoves, kicks, or otherwise subjects (a police officer) to physical contact. Everyone who posted without reading the text of the bill, which OP did have the courtesy to link to, should recall the motto of ATS and deny ignorance.

BRAVO...BRAVO...I just came to post almost the exact same thing!

I have no problems with this law whatsoever. Nothing more "annoying" then a cop trying to do his job and you some ass clowns interfering with crap.

Please read people!!

I was a juror last week and a woman was charged with resisting arrest. I asked what they were arresting her for and they sais disorderly conduct but they dropped that charge. I said it would only be proper to drop the resisting arrest charge too because without the first charge there could be no secondary charge. She walked

If it requires contact, is there already laws for that action. This has to be an attempt to make it easier to charge a person.

Originally posted by xEphon
Well being that Caffeine Withdrawal is now labeled a mental disorder you can now use that defense in case you find yourself annoying a cop...

You do know that they are trying to take away your right to posses a gun by labeling you with mental disorders, yes?

And in regards to this bill: it is a money making scheme. When they allowed the police forces to "confiscate drug money and assets" and "use them to stop the gaps in funding" everything went down hill. Now, the prisons are rain by private corporations with the distinct intent of gaining profit. When "public services" turn in to "private enterprise" nothing good can come from it. It all becomes a money making scheme, much like insurance, wall street; when profit is the motive, illegal will be the behavior.

If this Bill passes, you can go to prison for asking annoying questions like 'why am I being arrested?'

First we allow these lunatics to kill whenever they feel scared. Now they can destroy a person's life for being a mere nuisance.

The guy who wrote the Bill, let's throw him in prison for 4 years.

the bill (S.2402), sponsored by Senator Joe Griffo (R-C-I, Rome)

The bill was sponsored by local Senators Pat Gallivan, George Maziarz and Michael Ranzenhofer, as well as Senator Joe Griffo (R) of Rome.

There's your bogey...

Originally posted by Aleister
This will likely cover videotaping police, or talking to them while an arrest (or a beating) is in progress. NY police are probably laughing into their donuts and coffee today.

I wonder if Gov. Cuomo will sign this if it passes. He wants very much to run for president in '16 (to uphold the family non-tradition), and signing this will put him on the side of the control-freaks while not signing it could make him look like a hero of the people. And the courts, hard to imagine this will pass through the courts without being overturned, but who knows.

edit on 5-6-2013 by Aleister because: (no reason given)

the supreme court did make corporations human citizens, protected by the bill of rights, so, for me it's NOT hard to imagine.

reply to post by gladtobehere


well i will not ever set foot there again . the elite are trying to give police absolute conreol.