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

[EEllis]

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.

[mojo84]

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.

It was an attempt at humor. Sorry it annoyed you. Glad it's not a felony.

[texanjoker]

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.

It was an attempt at humor. Sorry it annoyed you. Glad it's not a felony.

You are annoying me

[mojo84]

Figured that to be the case.

[talltex]

[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."

[EEllis]

[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.

[talltex]

[It was an attempt at humor. Sorry it annoyed you. Glad it's not a felony.

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.

Really,I do get it...once again, that was intended to be a "slightly" humorous take on the common perception of the word annoy...not a real example of a possible legal charge. I simply feel the word "annoy" could have been left out altogether, and there would have been no substantive change to the offense...the charge is "harrassment" and the word harrassment covers it...and this thread wouldn't exist.

[Excaliber]

[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 o fficer.

The wording of NY's harassment statutes has been the same for over 30 years that I'm aware of. The only change with the legislation under discussion here is that it penalizes pushing, shoving, kicking, etc. an on duty officer more severely than when the same is done to a non LEO. This is similar to assaulting, killing or doing some other criminal things to an on duty officer, which also carries an upgraded charge.

As several members have pointed out, the focus on "annoy" is counterproductive. In fact, it takes a lot more than irritation to earn an arrest under the new offense, just as it did under the previous categories of harassment.

It looks like a nonissue to me.

[handog]

The law should hold the NYPD to a higher standard of conduct, and punishments should be more severe considering the powers they are granted and the fact they already receive greater protections than civilians when they themselves are attacked. As it is, police brutality for the most part goes unpunished.

[VMI77]

The law should hold the NYPD to a higher standard of conduct, and punishments should be more severe considering the powers they are granted and the fact they already receive greater protections than civilians when they themselves are attacked. As it is, police brutality for the most part goes unpunished.

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.

[EEllis]

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.

[VMI77]

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.

You seem to be conflating vulnerability and exposure, but even so, you don't have much of a case. I would call your analogy bogus but it doesn't make sense. Your sentence about the additional penalty is so convoluted I'm not sure what you're saying. However, the history of whatever law you're talking about is completely irrelevant to my statement, as is whatever justification supported it. I made a general statement about treating police officers and citizens unequally under the law. Your last sentence is just, well, for lack of a better word: sophistry. Collectivism seems to be the kernel of whatever argument you're attempting to make: it appears you would subordinate the rights of an individual to some supposed benefit of the collective. The logic of collectivism justifies any depredation, including mass murder. Sorry, but this country was founded based on individual rights, not the rights of any supposed collective.

[texanjoker]

Figured that to be the case.

[Dragonfighter]

<SNIP> Everytime I get into a conversation about firearms and religion with others, I can pretty much quickly figure out if they are from Texas or not. Even though they identify with conservatism, they always have some sort of nanny state requirement. Some examples being, "Have you seen how some of these soldiers act and you want to allow them full access to guns?" (we did in Iraq/Afghanistan), "Everyone who owns and especially carries a gun should have mandated special training first" (They never can tell me what that training should be, especially as soldiers apparently don't reach that invisible mark). <SNIP>

Consider the number on this very board who think CHL training should be more not less, that unlicensed personnel should not be allowed to carry and a litany of other "requirements" that go far beyond any intent of the Constitution.

[The Annoyed Man]

Based on A) my self-appointed stature as guardian of all that is good and decent, and B) my screen name (which strikes terror into the hearts and minds of the unrighteous), the politicians of New York are felonious. If I were musically inclined toward 1950s Jazz this morning, I'd say that they put me in a Felonious Funk.

My work here is done.