in new york, being annoying is now an arrestable crime

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**easysauce**

http://rt.com/usa/us-police-harrassment-crime-308/

The New York State Senate passed a controversial bill on Wednesday that aims to classify ‘aggravated harassment of a police officer’ as a crime, but will it give the authorities the green light for strong-arm tactics if passed?

Sponsored by Senator Joe Griffo, Bill S.2402 would make it a felony to “harass, annoy, or threaten a police officer while on duty.”

“Our system of laws is established to protect the foundations of our society,” Senator Griffo said. “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.”

Griffo said that New York police require extra safeguards because “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, which will now move to the State Assembly, would make it a crime for a person to make any type of physical action aimed at intimidating a police officer. Harassment of a police officer would be recognized as a Class E Felony, punishable by up to four years in prison.

Not surprisingly, the bill has won accolades from police.

“Professionally, I am grateful to see this bill pass through the Senate,” said Utica Police Department Chief Mark Williams, as quoted by the House Majority Press. “Our police officers have a very dangerous job and need the support of our government leaders to help make them safe.”

Williams believes that all too often, individuals are “physically challenging police officers in the line of duty.” Currently, in instances where an officer is physically attacked but does not sustain a physical injury, the only possible charge is a violation, he explained.

These consequences are too lenient for offenders, and send the wrong message to the public, Williams continued.

However, questions may arise as to where the boundaries should be drawn concerning the right of individuals to report on incidents of excessive police force, for example.

In May 2011, New York homeowner Emily Good was arrested by Rochester police while standing in her yard and videotaping police officers who were performing a traffic stop in front of her house.

When one of the officers asked Good what she was doing, Good replied, “I’m just recording what you’re doing; it’s my right.” The officer then told Good that “we don’t feel safe with you standing right behind us while we’re doing a traffic stop,” and ordered her to go inside 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.

I mean... physically attacking an officer is already a crime... making phsycal contact of any sort being added to that... well ok, dont hug any cops or shake their hands unless you want to go to jail, easy enough.

But not allowed to "annoy" them? that is such a broad brush, brings the whole "for every person a law" saying to my mind...

any cop could be annoyed by anything... that is such a broad, totalitarian Orwellian way to term it.

In otherwords just what I would expect from NY these days unfortunetly

**daedalus**

It's a shame there's no law that already protects people from being deliberately and specifically "harassed, annoyed, or threatened".

**Ahtman**

If being annoying is a crime everyone on OT is going to be on death row.

**hotsauceman1**

Welp, Look like this is the death of TFG guys.

**Gentleman_Jellyfish**

daedalus wrote:
It's a shame there's no law that already protects people from being deliberately and specifically "harassed, annoyed, or threatened".

Really? And how would you implement that to the general population?

**Super Ready**

Well, don't know about the US, but here in the UK harassment IS legally defined:

Under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997:
"A person must not pursue a course of conduct
"(a) which amounts to harassment of another, and
"(b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other."

For it to be acted on you typically have to have continued harassment wilfully over time and already ignored requests to stop. So you wouldn't get a police officer just bundling you into a cell for calling them a pudgeface or anything based on harassment.
...no, THAT one is typically called disturbing the peace.

Honestly? It can be a good thing. Without something like this in place the police have no recourse against people generally acting like feth-heads and getting in the way of their otherwise more important duties. It's particularly useful when dealing with drunk or high loudmouths... whether it'll be a good thing for New York though is not my place to say.

**KalashnikovMarine**

If being annoying is a crime I have only one question. Has Bloomberg agreed to surrender peacefully?

**dæl**

Super Ready wrote:
Well, don't know about the US, but here in the UK harassment IS legally defined:

Under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997:
"A person must not pursue a course of conduct
"(a) which amounts to harassment of another, and
"(b) which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other."

For it to be acted on you typically have to have continued harassment wilfully over time and already ignored requests to stop. So you wouldn't get a police officer just bundling you into a cell for calling them a pudgeface or anything based on harassment.
...no, THAT one is typically called disturbing the peace.

Calling someone a pudgeface would commonly see the accused charged with a Section 5 Public Order Offense

Public Order Act 1986 wrote:"(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he:

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

Although these days you are more likely to be charged if you called anyone other than a police officer a name, as they are expected to be able to shrug off abuse. It is possible to be detained without ever committing a crime as a Prevention of a Breach of the Peace, so if you were annoying a copper without causing harassment, alarm or distress they could cart you off on that if they so choose.

**azazel the cat**

If it weren't so specific to physical contact (and ya gotta be a dumbass to strike a police officer to begin with...) I'd think this was legislated to give the police a backdoor way to arrest someone for filming them.

**Kanluwen**

azazel the cat wrote:
If it weren't so specific to physical contact (and ya gotta be a dumbass to strike a police officer to begin with...) I'd think this was legislated to give the police a backdoor way to arrest someone for filming them.

More likely than not it's a response to some of the behaviors that were seen during the whole "Occupy" movement.

**LoneLictor**

It is now a crime to be disliked by a Police Officer in New York.

**Maelstrom808**

too many people in our society have lost the respect they need to have for a police officer

This bugs me the most. I'm sorry, but respect is earned, not written into law with a stroke of a pen.

**Ouze**

This is probably a backdoor to allow them to arrest people who film them ~~beating people up with nightsticks~~ struggling with perps who are resisting arrest.

They could have snuck it under the radar if they had instead made updates to their wiretapping laws that de facto have had the same result in jurisdictions that have done so.

**Kanluwen**

It's not actually uncommon in situations like public disturbances for individuals to try to take the opportunity to assault/impede officers in the execution of their duties.

**LordofHats**

Ahtman wrote:
If being annoying is a crime everyone on OT is going to be on death row.

I knew this day would come. I just logged in one day, looked at the forums and said to myself "DakkaDakka is gonna get me killed some day."

**Ouze**

Kanluwen wrote:
It's not actually uncommon in situations like public disturbances for individuals to try to take the opportunity to assault/impede officers in the execution of their duties.

And in those situations, is not obstruction of justice adequate? Do we really need vaguely worded new legislation?

**daedalus**

Kanluwen wrote:
It's not actually uncommon in situations like public disturbances for individuals to try to take the opportunity to assault/impede officers in the execution of their duties.

Why do you suppose that is?

**easysauce**

yeah guys, all you people saying this is "reasonable"

yes, PARTS of it are, but it literally says "annoying" is an arrestable chargeable offense.

what is the legal definition of annoying?

**rubiksnoob**

LordofHats wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
If being annoying is a crime everyone on OT is going to be on death row.

I knew this day would come. I just logged in one day, looked at the forums and said to myself "DakkaDakka is gonna get me killed some day."

But you know you won't stop; the rush is too exhilarating to give up.

Sadly, it's what happens with every user- they start for any number of reasons; maybe their friends recommended the forums, told them it was 'cool', maybe discussing strategy and armylists has always been something they've thought about doing in the back of their mind. Hell, maybe they were bored and had nothing better to do- figured just opening an account, just one, would be fun and then that would be it. But then they start posting regularly, maybe just on the weekends, after work. Hey, they tell themselves, it's just a way to relax, de-stress.

But then they start posting every day, exalting posters that they like, voting on gallery images and even starting their own threads. Then they've got a P&M blog. Then they're talking D&D in the RPG forum.

Then, one night they find themselves shivering, soaking wet for reasons they can't remember, huddled in the corner of a darkened room, mainlining OT while the harsh blue glow of the screen illuminates their sunken, hollow eyes. That's when they realize that they're hooked, that they've hit the rock bottom of the forum index. Unfortunately, that's when they also realize that it's too late, that they can never stop.

Then they die.

**Kanluwen**

Ouze wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
It's not actually uncommon in situations like public disturbances for individuals to try to take the opportunity to assault/impede officers in the execution of their duties.

And in those situations, is not obstruction of justice adequate? Do we really need vaguely worded new legislation?

That's a fair point, but sometimes people do not go so far that it could actually be considered 'obstruction'.

Another thing which occurred to me last night is that this could also be an attempt to lessen the usage of things like pepper spray/tasers by officers for completely unnecessary reasons.

daedalus wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
It's not actually uncommon in situations like public disturbances for individuals to try to take the opportunity to assault/impede officers in the execution of their duties.

Why do you suppose that is?

Do you want a serious answer?

Off the top of my head: In many of those kinds of situations, people think they can get away with it because they're in a crowd. They feel that their anonymity gives them a pass to be absolute toolbags to police officers who are going about their jobs.
There are also individuals who go out of their way to attend protests and other nonviolent activities with the specific intent of stirring up the pot and using the anonymity of the crowd to get away with it.

easysauce wrote:yeah guys, all you people saying this is "reasonable"

yes, PARTS of it are, but it literally says "annoying" is an arrestable chargeable offense.

what is the legal definition of annoying?

Do you really need a legal definition for "annoying" to know what it is?

Plus it does not say "annoying" is an arrestable chargeable offense." Read your own article. The charge is for aggravated harassment. One can already be charged for "annoying" someone under second degree harassment.

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.

**daedalus**

Kanluwen wrote:

Off the top of my head: In many of those kinds of situations, people think they can get away with it because they're in a crowd. They feel that their anonymity gives them a pass to be absolute toolbags to police officers who are going about their jobs.

Well, I can certainly agree to that. The internet reflect this quite nicely.

There are also individuals who go out of their way to attend protests and other nonviolent activities with the specific intent of stirring up the pot and using the anonymity of the crowd to get away with it.

Yeah, that makes sense. We saw that happen a lot just recently with the OWS stuff. The UK riots come to mind as well.

**Orlanth**

This thread needs clarifiction badly. The new crime is being annoying to police officers.

If it was a crime for New Yorkers to be annoying in general they might as well put a wall and barbed wire around the whole city, as foretold by Hollywood.

**Frazzled**

Kanluwen wrote:
azazel the cat wrote:
If it weren't so specific to physical contact (and ya gotta be a dumbass to strike a police officer to begin with...) I'd think this was legislated to give the police a backdoor way to arrest someone for filming them.

More likely than not it's a response to some of the behaviors that were seen during the whole "Occupy" movement.

The law will be challenged and found unconstitutional as overly broad and violative of the First Amendment. Case law supports that, as long as you aren't interfering in an investigation, they can suck it.

**Ouze**

Kanluwen wrote:
Ouze wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
It's not actually uncommon in situations like public disturbances for individuals to try to take the opportunity to assault/impede officers in the execution of their duties.

And in those situations, is not obstruction of justice adequate? Do we really need vaguely worded new legislation?

That's a fair point, but sometimes people do not go so far that it could actually be considered 'obstruction'.

This is starting to grow a quote tree, but eh.

What are situations in which you think police should be able to arrest someone, in that they've done something (in your opinion) clearly arrestable, but which hasn't risen to the level of obstruction of justice? Like, if someone's heckling a cop?

**Frazzled**

Ouze wrote:
This is probably a backdoor to allow them to arrest people who film them ~~beating people up with nightsticks~~ struggling with perps who are resisting arrest.

They could have snuck it under the radar if they had instead made updates to their wiretapping laws that de facto have had the same result in jurisdictions that have done so.

Exactly, and that case law will strike it down.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:
This thread needs clarifiction badly. The new crime is being annoying to police officers.

If it was a crime for New Yorkers to be annoying in general they might as well put a wall and barbed wire around the whole city, as foretold by Hollywood.

Can we go ahead and do that anyway? Come on, you know you want to.