New York wants to make it a felony to annoy a cop.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
There was little point in discussing expansion when the penalty for annoyance is a felony. I suppose it could become a death penalty issue but I haven't seen that suggested. It would be interesting to see thousands of Wall Street protesters charged with felonies. What about someone who doesn't pull over fast enough to suit a policeman who's going to issue a traffic ticket? What's the check on that? I'd ask under what circumstances would someone not be subject to a potential felony charge? The author of the bill seems keen on disrespect being a serious criminal violation. Maybe you see his statements differently?

I think what he is saying is that the legal term here doesn't mean what you think it does, and this is already a crime everywhere. It is one of those misconceptions like when people talk about theories vs. scientific theories.
 

Doppel

Lifer
Feb 5, 2011
13,306
3
0
Why do cops get special privileges that the rest of the populace doesn't get?
I don't know, I think it's bullshit.

So whoever sponsors this bill wants to make it a felony to sing a taylor swift song near a police officer who hates taylor swift. Ridiculous, I would say this would be unconstitutional (cruel and unusual punishment over a non-event), but my faith in enforcing the constitution continues to dwindle so who knows.
 

OBLAMA2009

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2008
6,574
3
0
this is probably meant to refer to any activity in which evidence of police abuse or criminality is being taken
 
Last edited:

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
This was passed by the NY State Legislature. Bloomberg is mayor of NY City.

2 sides of the same coin. the same nutjobs went all anti gunner nutter.


If they were for the people, it would be a felony for a cop to annoy a citizen.
 

Red Squirrel

No Lifer
May 24, 2003
67,201
12,029
126
www.anyf.ca
Technically this is already the case in the US. If a cop does not like you for any reason they can just beat or kill you on the spot and get away with it.

This is simply going to make it official. They use the word arrest but the method in which this is done is up to the cop. Anybody holding a camera will also definitly be considered annoying and get all their equipment confiscated. Not only that particular camera, but everything that could potentially be related such as their computers, hard drives, network gear, etc... But not like they'll need any of that stuff when they have to sit in jail for 25 years.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
I think what he is saying is that the legal term here doesn't mean what you think it does, and this is already a crime everywhere. It is one of those misconceptions like when people talk about theories vs. scientific theories.

That may be true so let's see what the law says.

Here's the text of the bill.

BILL NUMBER:S2402

TITLE OF BILL: An act to amend the penal law, in relation to
aggravated harassment of peace officers or police officers

PURPOSE: To establish the crime of aggravated harassment of a police
officer or peace officer and make such crime a class E felony.

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:

Section one amends the penal law by adding a new section 240.33
establishing the crime of aggravated harassment of a police officer or
peace officer.

Section two is the effective date.

JUSTIFICATION: Police officers all across this state put their lives
on the line every day to protect the people of New York. New York
State must establish laws and toughen existing laws that protect the
police from becoming victims of criminals. Far too many law
enforcement officers are being harassed, injured, even killed while
honoring their commitment to protect and serve this state. The
Legislature has a responsibility to do everything we can to protect
our brave heroes, our police officers, from violent criminals. This
legislation contributes to that premise

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: 2011-12 S. 2322 Passed Senate/A. 8099 Codes
Committee.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This act shall take effect on the first of November
next succeeding the date on which it shall have become a law.

S2402-2013 Text

S T A T E O F N E W Y O R K
________________________________________________________________________

2402

2013-2014 Regular Sessions

I N SENATE

January 17, 2013
___________

Introduced by Sens. GRIFFO, DeFRANCISCO, GALLIVAN, LARKIN, LIBOUS,
MAZIARZ, RANZENHOFER, SEWARD, YOUNG -- read twice and ordered printed,
and when printed to be committed to the Committee on Codes

AN ACT to amend the penal law, in relation to aggravated harassment of
peace officers or police officers

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEM-
BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:


Section 1. The penal law is amended by adding a new section 240.33 to
read as follows:

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.

Literally touching an officer would be a felony, and I suggest looking at the opinions of the author which I quoted before. This isn't just about harm, but respect, and demonstrating a lack thereof seems something worth a felony in his book. To be sure one cannot go around shoving police around, but there is no minimal threshold set in this bill. Also, there is substantial potential for abuse here where the word of police is sufficient grounds for conviction. Perhaps "slippery slope" was the wrong phrase, but considering abuse by police is an all too common occurrence, this adds a substantial opportunity to cow the public with the threat of a felony record.

Again, from the author.
"This is a necessary action because we can see from the rise in incidents that too many people in our society have lost the respect they need to have for a police officer."

While I do not believe police should be open targets, to say that they are helpless is completely untrue. Respect is earned by one's actions, not putting on a badge and gun. Considering the outrageous acts of a relative few which are ignored by the institutions governing them, perhaps the lack of respect is not so much on the part of the public, but by the various governments themselves for the people. That would certainly account for "the rise in incidents."
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
That may be true so let's see what the law says.

Here's the text of the bill.



Literally touching an officer would be a felony, and I suggest looking at the opinions of the author which I quoted before. This isn't just about harm, but respect, and demonstrating a lack thereof seems something worth a felony in his book. To be sure one cannot go around shoving police around, but there is no minimal threshold set in this bill. Also, there is substantial potential for abuse here where the word of police is sufficient grounds for conviction. Perhaps "slippery slope" was the wrong phrase, but considering abuse by police is an all too common occurrence, this adds a substantial opportunity to cow the public with the threat of a felony record.

I just looked at the current NYS penal code for aggravated harassment and the same any physical contact language is there as well and presumably has been for a long time. While I agree that there appears to be no good reason to make this a felony, it seems that Wolfe is right in that the part people were flipping out about (no touching!) is already the law in places all over the country
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
I just looked at the current NYS penal code for aggravated harassment and the same any physical contact language is there as well and presumably has been for a long time. While I agree that there appears to be no good reason to make this a felony, it seems that Wolfe is right in that the part people were flipping out about (no touching!) is already the law in places all over the country

I added a bit in an edit.

"Annoy" is not an issue at all. The substance is that if the common definition is used it makes no difference, since the bill is about contact (and pissing off an officer is not contact so yes those who believe it is about that are wrong).

The problem is the ramifications of such legislation and the potential for substantial abuse. It's almost impossible to argue it won't happen, and the consequences will follow someone for their entire life.

That's wrong.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
I added a bit in an edit.

"Annoy" is not an issue at all. The substance is that if the common definition is used it makes no difference, since the bill is about contact (and pissing off an officer is not contact so yes those who believe it is about that are wrong).

The problem is the ramifications of such legislation and the potential for substantial abuse. It's almost impossible to argue it won't happen, and the consequences will follow someone for their entire life.

That's wrong.

I don't see why it would be abused more than it is abused now, so again I don't see any reason for the consternation about the bill's language.

I do agree that making this a felony is wildly put of proportion with the crime, however.
 

Oldgamer

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,280
1
0
This is right up there with the cops who put that 15 year old kid in a choke hold, for giving them "dehumanizing stares". This is totally nuts, remind me not to go to New York ever.
 

Oldgamer

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,280
1
0
I really am convinced now they are making these absurd laws to increase the chances of citizens getting arrested and thrown into jail or prison, to keep the prisons flowing with bodies. You can't tell me that this isn't all by design. There is money in incarcerating the general public.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
Holy shit.

This is a necessary action because we can see from the rise in incidents that 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.

Maybe if pigs acted respectably people would respect them? Nah, let's just make disrespect a crime.

This country has gone absolutely insane.
 

MrPickins

Diamond Member
May 24, 2003
9,011
558
126
You shouldn't be physically contacting an officer in the course of their duties. Outrage not found.
 

lagokc

Senior member
Mar 27, 2013
808
1
41
Why do cops get special privileges that the rest of the populace doesn't get?

Because police officers bravely do a dangerous job and should get special protections because of how much danger they put themselves in to help their fellow citizens. Ok maybe it isn't nearly as dangerous as fishing or logging. Or pilot or trash collector. Or roofer or steel worker.

Actually being a police officer is a little less dangerous than being a pizza delivery driver. So we should give them a little less privileges than we give pizza drivers. I know cops where I live aren't allowed to take tips but that doesn't stop a lot of the city police from doing so :D
 
Last edited:

Midwayman

Diamond Member
Jan 28, 2000
5,723
325
126
Mere physical contact? So in the course of a police officer assaulting me I'm committing a felony by my face making contact with their fist? You know this is going to be used by police officers by walking up to someone and if they don't back up, they bump. Opps. Felony.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,145
10
81
so would video tapeing be annoying? i can see this getting abused badly. witch then i see it getting struck down too.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
Mere physical contact? So in the course of a police officer assaulting me I'm committing a felony by my face making contact with their fist? You know this is going to be used by police officers by walking up to someone and if they don't back up, they bump. Opps. Felony.

Yup. It's all about intimidation, cops love to intimidate.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,188
14,090
136
2 sides of the same coin. the same nutjobs went all anti gunner nutter.


If they were for the people, it would be a felony for a cop to annoy a citizen.

FYI IIRC it is already a crime to "harass" anyone, and that applies to police harassing citizens. My guess is the difference here is making it a felony when the harassment victim is a cop. I'm not saying I agree with this change. Just clarifying the facts.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,188
14,090
136
I think what he is saying is that the legal term here doesn't mean what you think it does, and this is already a crime everywhere. It is one of those misconceptions like when people talk about theories vs. scientific theories.

I'm saying that it has never been quite clear what "annoy" means in context of these harassment statutes. Every time I have encountered them, I have wondered about the possible over-breadth of that word and prior research has yielded little in the way of definite answers. In practice, harassment only seems to apply where there is a stated threat of violence, or extreme, repeated menacing behavior such that a reasonable person would feel threatened even absent an explicit threat. It is never a single instance of merely insulting someone or saying something obnoxious. The word "annoy" in common parlance would seem to encompass a lot of behavior which would never be prosecuted as harassment, and if prosecuted, would not result in conviction.

Quite probably, however, that particular word shouldn't be in the statutes. It is relic of statutes dating back decades, yet new harassment statutes seem to copy it from earlier ones.
 
Last edited: