• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

NY Senate passes bill to stop harrassment of LE officers

Whitewing

Well-known member
The New York State Senate today passed a bill that creates the crime of aggravated harassment of a police or peace officer. The bill (S.2402), sponsored by Senator Joe Griffo (R-C-I, Rome) would make it a felony to physically attack a police officer while on duty.

“At a time when shocking incidents of disrespect and outright confrontation are at an all-time high, the men and women who patrol the streets of our cities deserve every possible protection we can offer them,”Senator Griffo stated. “My bill would make it a crime to take any type of physical action to try to intimidate a police officer. 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.”

The bill establishes this crime as a Class E Felony, punishable by up to four years in prison.

“Professionally, I am grateful to see this bill pass through the Senate. Our police officers have a very dangerous job and need the support of our government leaders to help make them safe,”said Utica Police Department Chief Mark Williams. “All too often persons are physically challenging police officers in the line of duty. Currently in those instances where an officer is physically attack (short of sustaining a physical injury) the lawful charge is only a violation. The consequences are way too low for the offender and it sends the wrong message to the public. Police officers are the public’s first line of defense to restore order in dangerous/chaotic situations. Citizens do not have the legal right to physically challenge the authority of an officer lawfully performing their duties. Threats, intimidation and physical force used upon our police officers not only erode respect for our criminal justice system, but also endanger the public as well.

The bill is being sent to the Assembly.

At a time when shocking incidents of disrespect and outright confrontation are at an all-time high

Wonder why that is? :???: :???: :???:
 

Mike

Well-known member
Are EX-L.E. officers included in this Bill? I think I read that they were.......

As to your question: Too many are thugs.................. :lol:
 

Steve

Well-known member
every citizen needs to comply and that refusal to comply carries a penalty.

you can't force a person to respect another.. it must be earned...

police do have a difficult job,.. but they have the full force of the law on their side to begin with... while well meaning this law will only be used when it is to "silence" a dissenter or a person confronting an out of control police officer..
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
To be totally fair, this law involves "physical action" towards an officer. Which I would interpret to mean, physical contact, which I would assume a law already exists for such contact.

Now if "physical action" is interpreted to be a smirk, or rolling of the eyes, then, there is a problem with the law.
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
To be totally fair, this law involves "physical action" towards an officer. Which I would interpret to mean, physical contact, which I would assume a law already exists for such contact.

Now if "physical action" is interpreted to be a smirk, or rolling of the eyes, then, there is a problem with the law.

You know you're a redneck if your girlfriend doesn't remove the cigarette from her mouth while telling the state trooper to kiss her ass. :D
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Whitewing said:
hypocritexposer said:
To be totally fair, this law involves "physical action" towards an officer. Which I would interpret to mean, physical contact, which I would assume a law already exists for such contact.

Now if "physical action" is interpreted to be a smirk, or rolling of the eyes, then, there is a problem with the law.

You know you're a redneck if your girlfriend doesn't remove the cigarette from her mouth while telling the mountie to kiss her ass. :D

fixed


:oops:
 

Steve

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
To be totally fair, this law involves "physical action" towards an officer. Which I would interpret to mean, physical contact, which I would assume a law already exists for such contact.

Now if "physical action" is interpreted to be a smirk, or rolling of the eyes, then, there is a problem with the law.

by the look of the law.. challenging,.. intimidating and treats are covered..

so if a person says no you can't search my house to look for a terrorist..

he is challenging the officer .. when he stands in his door and refuses to move.. it is a physical action... and under this law it would be assault..

now if he grabs at the officer to maintain his balance as the officer shoves him aside... it is aggravated assault...

In this law,.. all that is required is the challenge an officer who believes the person would and could commit the battery.. a much lower standard then intimidation or actual threat needed by current laws... ...


when reading the law.. you must clearly understand what assault is in legal terms...

in the legal world.. assault is the perceived intent... battery is the physical action...

An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm.

Generally, the essential elements of assault consist of an act intended to cause an apprehension of harmful or offensive contact that causes apprehension of such contact in the victim.

The act required for an assault must be overt. Although words alone are insufficient, they might create an assault when coupled with some action that indicates the ability to carry out the threat. A mere threat to harm is not an assault; however, a threat combined with a raised fist might be sufficient if it causes a reasonable apprehension of harm in the victim.

n addition, the intent element is satisfied if it is substantially certain, to a reasonable person, that the act will cause the result.

In all cases, intent to harm is irrelevant.

so this law would cover a smirk or rolling eyes if the officer feels you are challenging him...

in the past he would have had to actually perceive a threat...


they just lowered an already low bar... of perceived intent..
 
Top