GTFO of New York while you can!

Discussion in 'Freedom and Liberty' started by VisuTrac, Jun 6, 2013.


  1. VisuTrac

    VisuTrac Ваша мать носит военные ботинки Site Supporter+++

    » NY Senate passes Bill that would make annoying a cop a felony Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

    NY Senate passes Bill that would make annoying a cop a felony



    Bill would basically allow police to arrest based on their own subjective impulses
    Adan Salazar
    Infowars.com
    June 6, 2013

    [​IMG]
    Lawmakers in New York may have jumped the shark with their latest police protection bill.

    New York Senate Bill 2402 would effectively make it a class E felony to “annoy” so-called peace officers.
    The bill, in part, reads:
    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.
    According to WIVB, Sen. Joe Griffo, one of the original sponsors of the bill, defended it and the all-important police state arguing, “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.”
    Besides the otherwise lame attempt to justify a bill that in essence gives police free rein, there is no actual explanation given for creating such a bill.
    If signed into law, offenders would be subjected to the same penalties as other class E felonies like “placing a false bomb or hazardous substance” in a public place, and “riot in the first degree.” This is the lowest felony charge in New York, but can still carry a penalty of up to 4 years imprisonment, depending on the judge’s decision.
    Given the fact that police almost universally disapprove of those who dare film them, little effort is needed to imagine them citing the bill as justification for their arrest of citizen journalists like We Are Change’s Luke Rudkowski, who routinely gets into verbal confrontations with police, or our own intrepid Infowars reporter Dan Bidondi, who it could be argued “harassed” authorities at the Boston Marathon press conferences.
    In addition, the bill virtually welcomes and protects police who would provoke citizens into any kind of verbal spat, as, under the vague language of the bill, any “harassment,” verbal or not, can be deemed unlawful.
    RT also noted the example of New York homeowner Emily Good, who was arrested by police in Rochester “while standing in her yard and videotaping police officers who were performing a traffic stop in front of her house.”
    “When Good insisted on her right to stand in her yard, she was arrested, handcuffed, and taken away in a police car. She was later charged with obstructing governmental administration.” Police told Good they didn’t feel safe with her standing behind them recording.
    Recently we also witnessed a 14-year-old in Florida get slammed to the ground and put in a choke hold for what amounted to little more than throwing police “dehumanizing stares.”
    In essence, the bill, if passed, would allow police to arrest according to their own subjective impulses.
     
  2. ghrit

    ghrit Ambulatory anachronism Administrator Founding Member

    Is "absurd" too mild?
     
  3. Pyrrhus

    Pyrrhus Monkey++

    A friend of mine recently asked, "Is it too soon to start shooting?".
     
    STANGF150 likes this.
  4. VisuTrac

    VisuTrac Ваша мать носит военные ботинки Site Supporter+++

    If there are any patriots left in NY State, my guess is we shall soon know the answer.
    It hasn't passed yet so they have the opportunity to come to their sense.
    Wait, wha ..? Nevermind, we are talking politicians in the great state with the 7 round mag issue.

    Is there a Lexington NY?
     
  5. Minuteman

    Minuteman Chaplain Moderator Founding Member

    "HE OR SHE STRIKES, SHOVES, KICKS OR OTHERWISE SUBJECTS SUCH PERSON TO PHYSICAL CONTACT." If I read this right there is no recourse for "dehumanizing stares" or simple "annoying" You must make physical contact. And that crosses the line in my book. I don't really see a problem with this law. I worked in security and bail enforcement and can tell you that someone cussing being belligerent etc is one thing. I can ignore that, but you "STRIKE,SHOVE,KICK, OR OTHERWISE SUBJECT me TO PHYSICAL CONTACT" and I'm taking you down. This just prevents the resulting lawsuits for "Police Brutality". If it is abused, sue the crap out of them. But if you made physical contact then your lucky it is LEO because private security like I worked would return that contact ten fold!
     
    tulianr likes this.
  6. tulianr

    tulianr Don Quixote de la Monkey

    I agree with Minuteman, and I don't really see the need of this new law. The action of striking, shoving, kicking, or making other physical contact with anyone, never mind a police officer, has always been subject to the charge of assault. It seems like they already have enough laws on the books without this one.

    I suppose the main effect of this bill would be to elevate a misdemeanor assault to a felony assault.
     
    Yard Dart likes this.
  7. ghrit

    ghrit Ambulatory anachronism Administrator Founding Member

    In some jurisdictions, screaming is assault, physical contact is battery. YMMV.
     
    tulianr likes this.
  8. BTPost

    BTPost Old Fart Snow Monkey Moderator

    Good think I live this far out, or I would be in the GrayBar Hotel for sure....
     
    tulianr likes this.
  9. DMGoddess

    DMGoddess Monkey+

    The 'physical contact' part bothers me a bit. What about a light tap on the shoulder? That's physical contact.
     
    VisuTrac likes this.
  10. ghrit

    ghrit Ambulatory anachronism Administrator Founding Member

    Who determines "light" regarding a tap? What does "reasonable" mean in lib context? Some things are all or none, like pregnancy.
     
  11. Quigley_Sharps

    Quigley_Sharps The Badministrator Administrator Founding Member

    You going to open the Freedom Bar?
     
  12. BTPost

    BTPost Old Fart Snow Monkey Moderator

    Hadn't thought of that, but Bruce's Trading Post (BTP Homepage) is open every day.......
     
  13. Quigley_Sharps

    Quigley_Sharps The Badministrator Administrator Founding Member

  14. DarkLight

    DarkLight I self identify as a Blackhawk Attack Helicopter! Site Supporter

    No sir. In all likelihood it's too late.
     
    tulianr likes this.
  15. Pyrrhus

    Pyrrhus Monkey++

    I truly hope you are wrong.
     
  16. DarkLight

    DarkLight I self identify as a Blackhawk Attack Helicopter! Site Supporter

    I do too brother, I do too.
     
  17. Pyrrhus

    Pyrrhus Monkey++

    First, sorry for the yelling, but I copied and pasted from the bill. They yelled, I'm just repeating it. " 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 reason this is such a bad bill is because it is too broad and there is too much that is up for interpretation.

    If I should have known someone is a police officer, I intend to annoy them, and I subject them to physical contact, I'm a felon. So if I jump out from behind a tree and startle a police officer and he trips and falls, I have alarmed him and subjected him to physical contact. This is a bill that is written to be abused.
     
    Yard Dart likes this.
  18. VisuTrac

    VisuTrac Ваша мать носит военные ботинки Site Supporter+++

    And what says the 'officer' can't just say, 'The perp struck me so i tasered his ass.'
    Is shaking hands physical contact?
    how about if the individual is 10 yards away observing the officer, the officer encroaches upon said individual, the officer invades the personal space of the individual causing them to backup, tripping over something and in natural reaction reaches out and grasps the officers arm?

    Yep, someone is going into the pokie.

    Stupid law, stupid people.
     
    Yard Dart likes this.
  19. Minuteman

    Minuteman Chaplain Moderator Founding Member

    As pointed out physical contact is assault. Scaring someone and them tripping over something doesn't constitute "physical contact". That would be a very easy case to win if it went to court. I think what the framers of this had in mind, was the grey area between "assault" and "Physical contact". When I worked security/ bouncer I had a lot of instances where someone would intentionally bump into me, hard. Get between me and whoever I was confronting and try to push or bump me back. Is that assault? Wouldn't fly in a court. They didn't raise a hand, didn't throw a punch. It was a crowded arena, bar etc. But they knew and I knew that it was intentional and meant to "HARASS, ANNOY, THREATEN OR ALARM..." So having been there done that, I still have to say that I find no problem with this law. I don't think it was intended to give LEO's carte blanche to just slap cuffs on anyone who looks at them wrong. Can the law be abused? Of course, like most laws. But like I said previously, if they abuse it sue the crap out of them.
     
  20. STANGF150

    STANGF150 Knowledge Seeker

    ForeFathers.
     
    Quigley_Sharps likes this.
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary
17282WuJHksJ9798f34razfKbPATqTq9E7