It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 6
46
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


The reason you are not getting a serious reply is because 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. is too vague to even be considered as an issue for a penalty at per choice of the police officer or peace officers to consider when and what part of this reason apply.

Too vague, my dear, too vague


If the words "physical contact" seem too vague to you, my dear, I wonder how you lived your life up till now. It's about as vague as "amputation" or "having sex".

What does make me wonder is this: there is already a relatively well defined thing known as "assault". Instead of combining this with the duty etc. they reinvented the wheel, so to speak. That's not right.




posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 08:06 PM
link   
I am not sure if this has been mentioned here, but the law already passed the New York Senate.


Published time: June 06, 2013 11:24
Edited time: June 06, 2013 14:07

The New York State Senate passed a controversial bill on Wednesday that aims to classify ‘aggravated harassment of a police officer’ as a crime, but will it give the authorities the green light for strong-arm tactics if passed?

Sponsored by Senator Joe Griffo, Bill S.2402 would make it a felony to “harass, annoy, or threaten a police officer while on duty.”

“Our system of laws is established to protect the foundations of our society,” Senator Griffo said. “Police officers who risk their lives every day in our cities and on our highways deserve every possible protection, and those who treat them with disrespect, harass them and create situations that can lead to injuries deserve to pay a price for their actions.”

Griffo said that New York police require extra safeguards because “too many people in our society have lost the respect they need to have for a police officer…. We need to make it very clear that when a police officer is performing his duty, every citizen needs to comply and that refusal to comply carries a penalty.”

The bill, which will now move to the State Assembly, would make it a crime for a person to make any type of physical action aimed at intimidating a police officer. Harassment of a police officer would be recognized as a Class E Felony, punishable by up to four years in prison.
...

rt.com...

This law is very vague, first of all it states anyone with the INTENT to annoy, harass, threaten, or alarm a police officer, or peace officer will be guilty of aggravated harassment, which is a class E felony.

BTW, DHS officers, including those at airports are considered peace officers, so if you annoy them for sexually harassing your kids, or your wife, or grandma, guess what?...

As for having "physical contact", heck maybe the peace officer at the airport is getting too happy to sexually harass your child, or your wife, or mother, or grandma, and you touch him, or push his hand away to stop him/her from further sexually harassing your family.

Physical contact is often part of the daily interaction of police officers and peace officers with people, and this new law states that the physical contact doesn't have to lead to any sort of injury to the officer to be considered "assault"...

This law is being passed so people will be more afraid of cops, it is that simple... Because of laws like this one police officers and peace officers are no longer there to help the people but to control the people...

BTW, I am trying to find is this law is considered a violent, or non-violent class E felony.

ypdcrime.com...

If I am guessing correct it would be labeled as a violent class E felony because of the language of the bill.

I spoke/wrote too soon, this is an addition to an already existing law which is considered a non-violent class E felony.

ypdcrime.com...

The law used to pertain to:


S 240.31 Aggravated harassment in the first degree.
A person is guilty of aggravated harassment in the first degree when
with intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm another person, because
of a belief or perception regarding such person`s race, color, national
origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability
or sexual orientation, regardless of whether the belief or perception is
correct, he or she:
...
240.32 Aggravated harassment of an employee by an inmate.
An inmate or respondent is guilty of aggravated harassment of an
employee by an inmate when, with intent to harass, annoy, threaten or
alarm a person in a facility whom he or she knows or reasonably should
know to be an employee of such facility or the board of parole or the
office of mental health, or a probation department, bureau or unit or a
police officer, he or she causes or attempts to cause such employee to
come into contact with blood, seminal fluid, urine or feces, by
throwing, tossing or expelling such fluid or material.
...

ypdcrime.com...




...
Sponsor: GRIFFO
Co-sponsor(s): DEFRANCISCO, GALLIVAN, LARKIN, LIBOUS, MAZIARZ, RANZENHOFER, SEWARD, YOUNG
Committee: CODES
Law Section: Penal Law
Law: Add S240.33, Pen L
...

open.nysenate.gov...


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



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 08:56 PM
link   
There's an easy solution to this.

The next time a cop stops you and asks you anything, simply tell him "Sorry Sir, according to the new laws, I'm not allowed to speak to you."

When he inquires what law, tell him "You see Sir, there's that new law that we are not allowed to annoy officers of the law. The problem is, how do we know if our responses are annoying? There's no standard for that. Therefore we must fall back on our right to remain silent. Only then is our Constitutional rights guaranteed. Thank you for understanding Sir. Have a nice day."

And make sure you're extremely polite when you're responding. Be very apologetic, that you're unable to speak.




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

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

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



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 09:05 PM
link   
The problem here is police officers can place you into handcuffs and detain you at anytime and say it's to protect you and him. So he says I am placing you into handcuffs put your hands on your head and you pause to ask why, you're now resisting arrest. Now the officer can arrest you for resisting arrest and so he bashes you over the head and you put your hands up to block it, you're still resisting arrest.

It's natural to question why you are being detained and being placed & bound in handcuffs for no reason. It's completely natural human response to protect yourself from some cop hitting you for no apparent reason. They don't need more powers they need LESS powers. If you give them an inch they will take a mile. It's proven in history that the more power you give someone that has power over others they will abuse that power.

Look at the Attorney general Holder. It's a powerful position he holds. If we can't trust him, then who can we trust? If the integrity of a powerful person is compromised then all others should be under scrutiny. The oversight committee is nothing but a complete joke. How do we know that the oversight committee isn't corrupt? They investigate after the fact they all been caught, but spending millions of dollars for complete utter garbage doesn't raise a red flag? They need to be monitored 24/7! I think it's absolutely ridiculous that those people in IRS can withhold a party and convention all paid by the tax payers and a $50,000 dollar mock up of the Star-Trek command bridge??? These people are completely out of control! They should all have their pay docked or assets seized and jailed.

Where is the FBI in all of this? They are mostly after top murders, and chasing after drug dealers and kicking in doors of some hacker kid. Where is the ongoing federal internal investigations of our crooked government officials and bankers? You never hear anything about that now do you? They won't go there because that would be biting the hand that feeds them and their corrupt org too. See how this works? It's all becoming one big cesspool.



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by KingErik
And make sure you're extremely polite when you're responding. Be very apologetic, that you're unable to speak.


Why do you insist on NOT reading the law as it's posted in this thread? Instead, you come up with this "don't speak" silliness. The law is pretty explicit about physical assault.



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 10:12 PM
link   
So down the road to fascism we go...



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Why do you insist on NOT reading the law as it's posted in this thread? Instead, you come up with this "don't speak" silliness. The law is pretty explicit about physical assault.


First of all, the law also states the INTENT to annoy, harass, threaten or alarm. When there is INTENT, there is no need for physical assault.

Second of all, as for physical assault the law states that the officers doesn't have to suffer any sort of injuries whatsoever to be considered assault. In case you didn't know regular people have physical contact with police and peace officers daily.

Not all officers are bad people, in fact I know a few of them, including cousins of mine who are police officers, and one corrections officer that is now retired. But we also know that there are cops who abuse their power, and this law can be EASILY abused.


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



posted on Jun, 6 2013 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Why do you insist on NOT reading the law as it's posted in this thread? Instead, you come up with this "don't speak" silliness. The law is pretty explicit about physical assault.


First of all, the law also states the INTENT to annoy, harass, threaten or alarm. When there is INTENT, there is no need for physical assault.

Second of all, as for physical assault the law states that the officers doesn't have to suffer any sort of injuries whatsoever to be considered assault. In case you didn't know regular people have physical contact with police and peace officers daily.

Not all officers are bad people, in fact I know a few of them, including cousins of mine who are police officers, and one corrections officer that is now retired. But we also know that there are cops who abuse their power, and this law can be EASILY abused.


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


And we already know that Harvard Professor Gates who was arrested in his own home for "disorderly conduct", when he was simply asking the police officer for his name and badge number , so that he could report him.

The officer was obviously "annoyed" by Gates, and didn't need these special powers at all.

So, officers already have "disorderly conduct" , a very vague thing, that they can and do abuse when it suits them. So, this "annoy" just creates more vague and flexible powers to arrest on a whim.


As Prof Gates discovered, it is best to keep silent.


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



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by KingErik

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Why do you insist on NOT reading the law as it's posted in this thread? Instead, you come up with this "don't speak" silliness. The law is pretty explicit about physical assault.


First of all, the law also states the INTENT to annoy, harass, threaten or alarm. When there is INTENT, there is no need for physical assault.

Second of all, as for physical assault the law states that the officers doesn't have to suffer any sort of injuries whatsoever to be considered assault. In case you didn't know regular people have physical contact with police and peace officers daily.

Not all officers are bad people, in fact I know a few of them, including cousins of mine who are police officers, and one corrections officer that is now retired. But we also know that there are cops who abuse their power, and this law can be EASILY abused.


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


And we already know that Harvard Professor Gates who was arrested in his own home for "disorderly conduct", when he was simply asking the police officer for his name and badge number , so that he could report him.

The officer was obviously "annoyed" by Gates, and didn't need these special powers at all.

So, officers already have "disorderly conduct" , a very vague thing, that they can and do abuse when it suits them. So, this "annoy" just creates more vague and flexible powers to arrest on a whim.


As Prof Gates discovered, it is best to keep silent.


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


You Know, any one who would even Begin to rationalize this absurd legis, is simply Evil. These types of Bondage lovers who worship power MONGERS, would hand over their own daughters to be raped and passed around by "annoyed cops" or other "annoyed authority figures". There simply is no reasoning with these types of minds,

They Worship AUTHORITY, they dont care if the authority is evil or not, they just love the idea OF authority and if that authority is Sadistic, well even better for them,

Which is why legis like this is so blatantly dangerous to ALL of us. It basically is giving cops, the Enforcers for the demon minions, like Neros Centurions, IMPUNITY to do as they damn well please to Anyone at Anytime and Anyplace, Literally giving them God status.

They are the equivalent to the thugs in Lot's day who gathered around and demanded the ANGELS to be brought out so they could rape and defile them...it's people like this, who WOULD throw out both the Daughters, Wife and Sons AND the ANGELS then watch with voyeuristic glee, licking their blood thirsty lips,

After all it's better than a movie, right?

Welcome to Modern day Sodom and Gomorrah people,

Btw, the basis of that literary symbolism wasn't about the "homosexuality" that many quote, no, it was in reference to the Horrific Violence and warped perverted injustices of that time, to where it was SO bad that there was no way in saving the region, hearts were THAT deplorably evil, like the zombies in Resident Evil. I read one if the ancient versions if the Sodom and Gomorrah was that a child, a little girl, was tortured to death...her crime, she aided a POOR person, and so they raped, tortured and killed her. It was her screams in the midst of such an evil society that brought down Gods WRATH,

This is what this type of legis is, and these evil supporters, are the same types of evil gang bangers of Sodoms time, it's like sex to them...the more innocent blood is shed and souls destroyed the more they Get off on it. THIS is what we are up against...

I'm going to throw something out here, you all can do wi it what you want...but I have a Theory, won't get I to details, how I came to this. But it's the Electricity, in the Tasers, that is Changing officers, it's the Electricity...call me crazy, but when they began to Use Tasers, and think...of all the Metal cops wear...they became MORE AGGRESSIVE,

There is SOMETHING to that, those Tasers (see Amnesty International brief) were sold to China for torture of dissidents, etc USA number one seller of,

There is Something dimensional, about the electricity in the Tasers, that is OCCULT.

In other words, it's not just Cops we are dealing with, we are dealing with a whole other Force at work...and it is a Very DEMONIC FORCE. That's my two cents,

Theory, just a theory, but it's the dark night, and it's going to get very, very dark. People's Hearts, wait and see...
edit on 7-6-2013 by ThreeBears because: Addition



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 12:59 AM
link   
It's New York, the place where Nostradamus says will be gone in an hour. Those laws are not forever.

I get it that they are designing a utopia, and this is an anti-jerk law for police, but that's a variable amount of emotional blackmail in that law. Some officers are less annoyable than others. Then what happens if someone is wailing for help and the officer is annoyed at it? I thought harassment laws already were in place, just an added penalty for law enforcement and clergy, but maybe that only applies to homicide.



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by LastStarfighter
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


This is for one reason and one reason only.

Annoy=video

If you video a cop now in New York while he does something you will be arrested. This is good for the cops so they can do things above the law without being recorded easier.


No my cop hating friend it isn't.

In fact I see NOTHING in the law (someone posted the law here WORD FOR WORD) that says "you cannot video tape a police officer in performance of his duties".

Now what it DOES enable a police officer to do is charge someone with a FELONY if they engage in the VIDEO SETUP of police officers.

You know that little thing where you instigate an incident then start video taping the response. Or you tape an incident and ONLY SHOW/TAPE the police response.

In both cases you do not show the whole context of events so as to try to make a FALSE CASE (which IS ILLEGAL) against the police.

Now before those cop haters start screaming "no we dont" and call me a facist/nazi/whatever derogatory term there have been more than a few of those videos posted here that when the whole story came out OOOPS the backtracking/denials/silence was deafing.

In keeping with this commenters comment about "making it illegal to videotape a cop" I conclude with this.

If you are trying set up a cop/false accusations, you try to tape an incident in a way that INTERFERES WITH the police doing their duty (example getting supper close and on audio we here you saying "what are you doing/what did they do/leave them alone pig" you MAY FACE a penalty under law up to a felony.

Please realise people that the can go UP TO A FELONY. They don't have to.

IMO the reason for this UPGRADE OF EXISTING LAW is because some of the nitwits are not getting the message with a mistomeanor charge. So now they can hit you with something more serious for your stupidity.



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 03:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by gladtobehere
Bill would make annoying a cop a crime.


ALBANY, N.Y. (WIVB) - A bill currently making its way through the State Legislature would make it a crime to annoy a police officer, a move that could have far reaching consequences.

The State Senate passed the bill Wednesday that makes it felony to "harass, annoy, or threaten a police officer while on duty." The bill was sponsored by local Senators Pat Gallivan, George Maziarz and Michael Ranzenhofer, as well as Senator Joe Griffo (R) of Rome.

Anyone found guilty under the bill, should it become law, could face up to four years in prison.

The Bill says "aggravated harassment" but the definition can be found here:




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

Speechless. Really. I'm at a loss.

Bloomberg with his "stop and frisk" and now the state legislature with this.

Recently, there has been a state sovereignty movement and mention of states like Texas discussing succession or legally leaving the Unites States.

Conversely, would there be a way to force NY out of the U.S? Maybe build a wall around the entire state and turn into a prison?

Start a White House petition?


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


Bravo. I am quoting this to reenforce with FACTS WHAT THE BILL ACTUALLY SAYS.

People lets get a little history lesson here.

This bill is doing nothing more than taking EXISTING LAW(S) that the current penalty is a misdemeanor to increasing the maximum penalty THAT COULD BE NOT NECESSARY WILL BE to a felony.

Does not mean it will be, does not mean it could not be negocated down, or that you will face the maximum sentence, JUST COULD BE.

If one would be truthful alot of these cases even in states (which there are ALOT OF) where you could be bumped up to a felony the MAJORITY OF THE CASES are not.

Lastly if one cares to watch cops, american jail, ect you see that alot of "annoying/just asking the cops for xx information" comments people make are not what they seem.

Yes you can make a case of "police cherry picking", but when you go actually to court you see that the majority (boarding on most of them) are only "police state tactics" in the minds of the person and their supporters.

As the poster i quoted above me stated.

deny ignorance



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 03:43 AM
link   
Now what I am about to say will not be taken kindly (and thats putting it mildly) by the "anti cop" posters here but the TRUTH usually is not taken well.

The reason I believe they are trying to increase the charge and possible penalties of CURRENT LAWS from a misdemeanor to a felony is due to the actions of those people WHO ARE SCREAMING THE LOUDEST AGAINST IT.

Lets look at the OWS people of the past.

While a few were engaged in peacefull protest the VAST MAJORITY were by all accounts best be described as troublemakers itching for a fight.

You may argue my point (and I suspect alot will) but all the video tape shot by the news, people (such as mom and pop business owners and residents) who live/work around the protestors, and the phyiscal evidence shows they were not the "peaceful people who were harrassed by the man/police state" they claim to be.

Now if one cares to check THE FACTS (aka court records) unless someone committed come aggravating crime (such as direct assault on police, rape, robbery, ect) in which the charge in interfering with a police officer (or law to that effect) was a SECONDARY charge all they were held to was a misdemeanor charge.

In which the penalties were mild if even persuded at all.

In fact most interference of police charges are secondary and are either dropped or rolled into the main charge with no extra time due to it.

Now with those who video tape police unless the cop is being totally unreasonable (which is RARE) there are alot of people who are now either setting up the cops or waiting an an incident and ONLY START TAPING after the instigator is done. Thus not giving the full story. It is called FALSE CHARGES AND IS CRIMINAL.
Even then most are misdemeanor under the law.

So due to peoples CHOOSING to interfere or continue to interfere multiple times you FORCE the laws to change to make it possible to face even stiffer penalties for your actions.

Its like stomping on thin ice or continueing to move closer to a ledge on a mountain. Sooner or later you will push it too far then something very bad happens.

So what I am saying if you keep pushing the limits sooner or later you push too far.

Now note for accuracy (somthing that ATS is supposed to strive for) if a police officer is totally out of like I will be more than willing to have that person be held accountable under the law. As one who has worked in LE for a long time most of us have no problem calling out, testifying against, or on a jury finding a cop guilty IF THEY DID SOMETHING ILLEGAL.

However most of the cases/video shown (even on ats) when the WHOLE STORY comes out it is not what the person crying foul says it is.

Case in point when you read the WHOLE law as apposed to the title of this post.

Now to those who will undoubitly claim here "I was unjustly arrested for XX" or look what happened to so and so or look at this video I say SHOW ME ALL THE FACTS.

In conclusion no one is for a police state or ignoring the constitution.

But wake up people. Without laws and those brave but underapreciated men and women who ae police officers you WOULD NOT be able to protest at all much less have any liberties you now enjoy.

Just look at a county you have total freedom to do what you want with no police called somalia.
Look at a true police state called Russia (even today).

If you think all cops are corrupt/police state/nazis then DONT CALL THEM the next time your iphone is stolen, your carjacked, there is a dope dealer in your neborhood, gangs run your block, your house is broken into or your attacked.



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by KingErik
There's an easy solution to this.

The next time a cop stops you and asks you anything, simply tell him "Sorry Sir, according to the new laws, I'm not allowed to speak to you."

When he inquires what law, tell him "You see Sir, there's that new law that we are not allowed to annoy officers of the law. The problem is, how do we know if our responses are annoying? There's no standard for that. Therefore we must fall back on our right to remain silent. Only then is our Constitutional rights guaranteed. Thank you for understanding Sir. Have a nice day."

And make sure you're extremely polite when you're responding. Be very apologetic, that you're unable to speak.




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

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

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


Sigh

You really want to stick by your rediculous comments?

Let me educate you in constitutional law.

YOU ALREADY HAVE THAT RIGHT.

Its called the FIFTH AMENDMENT aganist self incrimination.

That has only existed for ohhhhh over 200+ years and taught senior year (called constitution class) for as long as I can remember.

You also have the maranda rights which are not only common knowlege but by LAW must be read to you when being arrested.

This has existed for over ohhhh 50+ years and for over 30+ REQUIRED TO BE READ to you when arrested (Note I may be off a few years).

I applaud you for adding being respectful. But my mother taught me that from childhood do not a new concept either.

But hey let me respectfully say (from the movie diehard) "welcome to the party".

edit on 7-6-2013 by scrounger because: update for clarity



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 03:55 AM
link   
reply to post by ThreeBears
 



Ah I am confused?

Your calling cops demons and the law from satan?


If we have gone evil you do know you have the right to move to any other county you like right?

I am sorry but even suspending disbelief I cannot remotely see where your coming from.

So who do you call if your house is robbed?



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Why do you insist on NOT reading the law as it's posted in this thread? Instead, you come up with this "don't speak" silliness. The law is pretty explicit about physical assault.


First of all, the law also states the INTENT to annoy, harass, threaten or alarm. When there is INTENT, there is no need for physical assault.


I see. Well, you aren't well versed in the basics of law. The intent refers to the action specified and committed. I understand that it may not be obvious for some. I spent enough time rubbing shoulders with lawyers to know the difference. So no, it's not like you "intend" to annoy a person and that becomes a mind crime. In summary, this phrase of yours:


When there is INTENT, there is no need for physical assault.


makes zero sense at all, it's just nonsense. Don't take it personally.

If I intend to become rich, this doesn't move me into a different tax bracket.




edit on 7-6-2013 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by scrounger

Sigh

You really want to stick by your rediculous comments?

Let me educate you in constitutional law.

YOU ALREADY HAVE THAT RIGHT.

Its called the FIFTH AMENDMENT aganist self incrimination.



I'm not talking about self incrimination.

I'm talking about not annoying.

The officer might simply be asking me if I saw a man in a blue shirt come this way.

In has nothing to do with me. Its about avoiding the uncertainty that naturally arises when different people interact.

You take a bunch of foreign immigrants from all around the world, and dump them into the same neighborhood, they all come with different sense of humor, different things they find offensive, different likes and dislikes, and prejudices, add to that the variation in sensitivities among individuals, and you've got a powder keg, waiting to explode. Then you strike a match with this "annoy" thing.

Gee, how many times I have been shocked myself, over things I have said, that mysteriously offended someone.

I know from personal experience that people are going to be annoyed at what I say, how I say it, when I say it, and I'm not going to be able to anticipate their response.

Now you give one of those guys a uniform, a badge, a gun, and hand him a new law, that says, hey, you can arrest anyone YOU find annoying.

Someone is trying to spark a riot or revolt, and all this "tightening of the screws" is the evidence.

But, we can beat them. Just be polite and silent.



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by scrounger

If you think all cops are corrupt/police state/nazis then DONT CALL THEM the next time your iphone is stolen, your carjacked, there is a dope dealer in your neborhood, gangs run your block, your house is broken into or your attacked.



All cops are not corrupt. That's not the point. All cops are not honest either. Cops are like the rest of the society, from which they are drawn, some good, some bad. We don't want to give the bad ones more "tools". We don't need to give the good ones more tools. We don't expect perfect security. Freedom and security are mutually exclusive. We want a balance. If someone tips the scales one way, we must react another way to restore the balance.

To re-balance the "annoy law", we can "keep silent".

The cops then have to decide whether they need the "annoy powers" or rather have "more cooperation" from the public when going about their beat.

In some parts of North America, they got wise, and started handing out "tickets" for movies and ice-cream.

The effect this has, is that people don't immediately "tense up" and become alarmed, when a cop approaches them.

They begin to look forward to meeting the police officers on their beat around town.

So, the cops get more cooperation.

Makes sense.

Do they really need more intimidating powers?

Or should they change their "attitudes" so that people feel more comfortable around them?

See the point?



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by terriblyvexed


Conversely, would there be a way to force NY out of the U.S? Maybe build a wall around the entire state and turn into a prison


Well if the president was to get kidnapped there we could send Kurt Russell to save him...


So if I was to tell a cop that I didn't want to sign a ticket (which is my right because signing a ticket is admission to guilt) , and he decides that annoys him I could spend 4 years in prison?

How dose that not break constitutional rights?

Actually in NY they don't make you sign! I am starting to think I would be better off living in Nazi Germany during Hitlers reign! At least they had less BS laws! How far will we let things like this go?
We are being reduced to slaving consumers without any freedom to express ourselves!
This law is to make it so we can't even ask the police if they work for us or the corporations without fear of arrest!
We only have the freedom of speech to talk to ourselves but soon we will get committed doing that!
Sorry for the rant but I am losing my mind over these unjust laws!



posted on Jun, 7 2013 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by KingErik
You take a bunch of foreign immigrants from all around the world, and dump them into the same neighborhood, they all come with different sense of humor, different things they find offensive, different likes and dislikes, and prejudices, add to that the variation in sensitivities among individuals, and you've got a powder keg, waiting to explode. Then you strike a match with this "annoy" thing.


So you are still NOT reading the material you decided to comment on. This is just grand, and in a way surreal. You comment on things that you have no idea about. What does "sense of humor" have to do with a very specific reference to physical harassment as states it in the law?



new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join