TexasCHLforum.com

EEllis

VMI77 wrote: Well, if we really believed in what the Constitution says in the equal protection clause, then laws punishing one group more severely than some privileged group would be unconstitutional. Our rights are supposed to be individual rights, not collective rights, so a police officer's right to life should not be superior to mine. Elevating the lives of police officers above the lives of those they are supposed to protect is a product of collectivism, and as you suggest, it also makes no logical sense, since the average police office is less vulnerable to violence than the average citizen.

Among other things the statement about police officers being less vulnerable is weak logic. It's like saying someone in a open Jeep in the US is more vulnerable than solders in a armored Humvee would be in a war zone. Additionally you assume that the additional penalty indicates that they have some superior right when historically the extra penalty was because of the Public not the individual officer. It is the public that is additional harmed by being deprived of the service of the public servant, we who bare the additional cost when they are injured.

EEllis

talltex wrote:
mojo84 wrote:[It was an attempt at humor. Sorry it annoyed you. Glad it's not a felony.
I think it's the word ANNOY itself, that causes most of us to voice our reservations about this statute. I think in most people's minds, when they hear the word "annoy" it has a much less serious connotation than "harrassment". In my own view, I think of something that's a "minor irritant"...but NOT something you'd get really bent out of shape about. Something like a parent who lets their kids run wild in a store...someone taking up 2 parking places...playing a stereo too loudly...talking loudly on their cell phone in a resturant, and so forth. It's such a vague term, I just can't see what purpose it serves in a legal statute which already uses the word "harrassment" to cover the same elements of the crime...other than an attempt to intentionally broaden the scope of the law. In one of the quoted statutes (S240.26 / 3), it further clouds the issue, when it uses the phrase "seriously annoy", as an element of the offense. That extra word (seriously), indicates that there is a unexplained "degree" of annoyance required for that offense. I can hear the attorney now: "my client is innocent...he started off "slightly" annoying Officer Jones by sticking out his tounge, and admittedly, when he wiggled his fingers in his ears and went "nana na na naaana" he became "mildy" annoying...but at no time did he ever approach "seriously" annoying, so these trumped up charges must be dismissed."

It depends on the circumstances doesn't it? In this case it requires physical contact which leaves out all of your examples. Why you get so focused on the one word that you can't see the others is unfortunate. Mind you it doesn't say it's a crime to annoy the cop, it says you are guilty of aggravated harassment if you assault an officer with the intent to, among other possible reasons, annoy the officer.

EEllis

mojo84 wrote:I am pretty sure I've "annoyed" gigag04, texanjoker and srothstein on occasion. If they were on duty at the time, it appears I would have committed a felony based on the proposed NY bill if that bill were the law in Texas.

Pretty scary if you ask me.

Unless you physically assaulted them then no you did not.

Just to add we have almost the same law here in Texas when the person is a civilian, it's a class A misdemeanor if I remember right, Harassment. The only thing that the NY law would do is basically apply the harassment statute currently in place to police and bump it up one degree to the lowest level felony. I can understand disagreeing with the bill but it has not been honestly portrayed in here.

EEllis

RX8er wrote:
EEllis wrote: .......which reads much different and wouldn't be a big issue.
How do you figure? I guess I am reading it different than you are.

Because it's not just annoy a cop it's that " HE OR SHE STRIKES, SHOVES, KICKS OR OTHERWISE SUBJECTS SUCH PERSON TO PHYSICAL CONTACT" With the intent to harass.

EEllis

gthaustex wrote:Seems like the way it is worded, it is far too vague and ripe for abuse....

Only because you haven't seen the whole thing which reads much different and wouldn't be a big issue.

Here is the proposed new law

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.

http://newyork.onpolitix.com/news/2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; 46747/bill-would-make-annoying-a-cop-a-crime

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 5 matches

Re: Soon to be - Felony if You Annoy the Police in NY

Re: Soon to be - Felony if You Annoy the Police in NY

Re: Soon to be - Felony if You Annoy the Police in NY

Re: Soon to be - Felony if You Annoy the Police in NY

Re: Soon to be - Felony if You Annoy the Police in NY