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

Originally posted by buddhasystem
OK fine,

now this thread shifted into cyber spying paranoia and frankly complete psychosis.

Swell.

K Your Welcome !

The dream police, they live inside of my head / The dream police, they come to me in my bed / The dream police, they're coming to arrest me, oh no /


Well, I can't tell lies 'Cause they're listening to me And when I fall asleep Bet they're spying on me tonight, tonight





Cheap Trick : Dream Police

that will be next !!!

Prisoner Number 6 ....

Anoy a cop get 4 years in prison ! a NY Bill !??? LOL !

it lead to this from the past 13 years!!

TY Patriot Act!!! TY NSA

Right Now your able to talk all about this on Forums to Website News Papers
Soon it will End if this Keeps Up ..... Censership and Freedom of Speech ....

If cop = c and,
People = p, and
c = p with respect to equal protection of rights (although I believe the people have slightly more rights)

Then if p is annoying c and being put in prison, then
c annoying p should have the same effect conversely?

When can a particular "injury" against any state official be worse than a state official "injuring" a citizen for the same offense. I'll never understand the logic of people who allow these types of errors in legislation.

I can see it now. People getting arrested for viewing the police as they do training exercises or even arresting people near a arrest being made.. I wonder how many arrests will take place from innocent people taking video of a arrest being carried out.

I will reserve judgement on this tho until I see the bill with my own eyes and not just a copy and paste job which can be easily manipulated.

K...


open.nysenate.gov...


After reading it I can see this bill will be used to combat against people taking video of police.

All I have to say now is any cop who has an issue with being recorded is obviously a corrupt officer. Why would recording a beating cause "ALARM" for an officer? Because they know they are abusing their powers? I don't know. I just know this bill is a loophole tactic so cops of NYPD can # with the people recording them without repercussion.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Because New York cops needed more reasons to be [snipped]?

edit on Wed Jun 5 2013 by DontTreadOnMe because: 15b.) Profanity: You will not use profanity in our forums on the Websites, and will neither Post with language or content that is obscene, sexually oriented, or sexually suggestive nor link to sites that contain such content. Terms and Conditions of Use--Please Review

Mod might want to type that bad word into the search box. He'll have a lot of edits to make.

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

Most of the mods on here are either jack boots themselves or jack boot lickers. Ever notice?

For a site that prizes itself with 'denying ignorance" and beng a "conspiracy" site, has anyone ever noticed that most of the mods are right wing, cop loving jack boot lickers and most of them DON'T believe in conspiracies? Just a question.........

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by TruthSeekersRUS
K...


open.nysenate.gov...


After reading it I can see this bill will be used to combat against people taking video of police.

I'm sorry if I sound like a broken record but you neglected to read the actual bill. The bill ties the offense to the actual physical violence. You tying it to "video" sounds downright stupid. Sorry.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Sorry sir. I did not mean to generalize all of NYPD.

As for my comments about police abusing their powers over people recording video, if the bill passed those police who fear being recorded would use this bill to enact arrest based on the "alarm" factor stated in the bill.

The bill states: "Establishes the crime of aggravated harassment of a police officer or peace officer; provides for such an offense to be a class E felony. "

"Aggravated Harassment "

"Section 240.30" of the Penal Law in NY/NYC. It is an A misdemeanor, just short of a felony.

"Usually the defendant is accused of threatening or annoying the "victim" through phone calls e-mails or video. Lately the use of text messages and social networking sites has come into play."

Edit. Just wanted to add that "4 years in prison" within the title of the thread is for thread attention only.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Why would they need a new law for that when there are already plenty of laws to cover physical violence? Nope, you are wrong this is how they slip BS into the system that LE gladly uses and if anyone complains they just repeat their we don't make the laws we just enforce them blah blah blah bs.

Originally posted by verylowfrequency
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

Why would they need a new law for that when there are already plenty of laws to cover physical violence?

That's what I said already. It's unnecessary. But this still does not negate sheer stupidity of many anti-police posts in this thread.

reply to post by TruthSeekersRUS


Sorry I don't see your point. Please quote the exact language of the bill which implies that if I'm using my iPhone to videotape the street, I'm going to jail for 4 years (or four days, or whatever).

If you look at the content of any Youtube video of "filming police" regardless of the actual content of the video and the context in which it was filmed, the overriding constant is that the police nearly always get annoyed.

The police can be rather subjective when it comes to being annoyed.

Now if we look a little deeper there are many occasions in such videos where the police overstep their authority. I realize that these are the bad apples, so please don't take this as tarring them all with the same brush.
In cases where LEOs overstep their authority and are being caught, will they be annoyed that they have been caught? Absolutely. Will they see the exercising of rights by the public as annoying? Possibly.
With a few exceptions, the videos I've seen floating around the interwebs mostly seem to feature the public flexing their rights and "annoying" the snot out of flustered LEOs.

It's not a huge jump to expect those LEOs who regularly blur the line between right and wrong to invoke 'being annoyed.'

Originally posted by Badgered1
If you look at the content of any Youtube video of "filming police" regardless of the actual content of the video and the context in which it was filmed, the overriding constant is that the police nearly always get annoyed.

The police can be rather subjective when it comes to being annoyed.

The grand jury can be rather objective. I know, I've been on one.

So the rest of that go to work are allowed to be annoyed on a daily basis for different reasons. Customer's annoy me every day all the time. if I even go to my boss and complain I'd be told to deal with it. So I guess If you hate being annoyed with people become a cop.

Originally posted by NoSoul
So the rest of that go to work are allowed to be annoyed on a daily basis for different reasons. Customer's annoy me every day all the time.

Ah, so you are in the part of the thread who didn't actually read the material. Great.

If you did, you would have commented how your customers would hit you or tackle you just to annoy.

Originally posted by TruthSeekersRUS

Edit. Just wanted to add that "4 years in prison" within the title of the thread is for thread attention only.

•“A” Violent Felony: Life, 20-25 years
•“B” Violent Felony: 5-25 years
•“B” Non Violent Felony: 1-3, Max 25 years
•“C” Violent Felony: 3 1/2 to 15 years
•“C” Non Violent Felony: No Jail, Probation, 1-2 years to 15 years
•“D” Violent Felony: 2-7 years
•“D” Non Violent Felony: No Jail, Probation, 1-3 to 7 years
•“E” Violent Felony: No Jail, Probation, 1 1/2 to 4 years
•“E” Non Violent Felony: No Jail, Probation, 1 1/3 to 4 years

ypdcrime.com...

Hmm...looks like an E felony can get a person up to 4 years.

Nevermind

Originally posted by buddhasystem

I see. Well, you aren't well versed in the basics of law.

Wow, even quoting the law itself serves no purpose to you... Not only that, but you have the galls to try to derail the topic by attacking the messengers... hummm, I wonder if that has ever been tried by anyone before?...

Intention doesn't guarantee a goal... If you "intent to be rich" you just "try" to be one. But the intent in itself will not guarantee you to become one...

As it applies to this law, how would an officer prove that a citizen had "intent" to "annoy" him/her? Are they going to require officers to read minds now?...

Originally posted by buddhasystem
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.

Really?, let's take a look at my statement again...

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

I made the same argument as you just did with your above analogy, but you tried to claim I wrote the opposite... WOW...

Of course your "intent" to become rich doesn't make you rich... That was my argument to begin with...