looks like NY wants you to stop recording police misconduct

http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S2402-2013

harcrimepolice.jpg


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.
 
much like how officers abuse the 'disorderly conduct' charge, or the resisting arrest charge, the wording of this bill should be self explanatory in how it can be used against those who simply record them. Especially given that there have been half a dozen incidents this year where police have arrested and/or confiscated cell phones with the claim that they felt threatened because they thought it was a gun.
 
The bill also says "...with the intent..." and without a person saying that was their "intent", someone would have a hard time proving it.
 
While this is as ridiculous as any legislation I have seen in a while, it does require contact with the officer to qualify as being annoying enough to arrest someone.

"...HE OR SHE STRIKES, SHOVES, KICKS OR OTHERWISE SUBJECTS
SUCH PERSON TO PHYSICAL CONTACT."

Yes it is vague and looks like something that is wide open to abuse. But at least it requires physical contact.
 
While this is as ridiculous as any legislation I have seen in a while, it does require contact with the officer to qualify as being annoying enough to arrest someone.

"...HE OR SHE STRIKES, SHOVES, KICKS OR OTHERWISE SUBJECTS
SUCH PERSON TO PHYSICAL CONTACT."

Yes it is vague and looks like something that is wide open to abuse. But at least it requires physical contact.

Oh maybe.
 
After the annoy part it requires that the person do something physical.

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.


Absolutely requires physical contact.
 
You can't put anything past these fuckers here. Last year (or maybe two summers ago now), a cop was struck on the side of the LIE and killed. So what did they do? Pass a law that says that anytime a cop is on the side of the road, you have to change lanes. So that there is an empty lane between them and the sidepass. You should see people trying to change lanes when they see a cop pulled over. It puts everyone else's life at risk. But none of our lives have any value when compared to the life of one cop. It's really amazing. I refuse to do it. And have yet to be be pulled over for the infraction.
 
After the annoy part it requires that the person do something physical.

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.


Absolutely requires physical contact.

Yes I misread.
 
While this is as ridiculous as any legislation I have seen in a while, it does require contact with the officer to qualify as being annoying enough to arrest someone.

"...HE OR SHE STRIKES, SHOVES, KICKS OR OTHERWISE SUBJECTS
SUCH PERSON TO PHYSICAL CONTACT."

Yes it is vague and looks like something that is wide open to abuse. But at least it requires physical contact.


EXACTLY..."physical contact" is required to qualify as a criminal offense.
 
You can't put anything past these fuckers here. Last year (or maybe two summers ago now), a cop was struck on the side of the LIE and killed. So what did they do? Pass a law that says that anytime a cop is on the side of the road, you have to change lanes. So that there is an empty lane between them and the sidepass. You should see people trying to change lanes when they see a cop pulled over. It puts everyone else's life at risk. But none of our lives have any value when compared to the life of one cop. It's really amazing. I refuse to do it. And have yet to be be pulled over for the infraction.
The law does say 'when possible'
 
After the annoy part it requires that the person do something physical.

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.


Absolutely requires physical contact.
again, like assault on on officer occurs when the suspect hits the cops fist with his face?
 
You can't put anything past these fuckers here. Last year (or maybe two summers ago now), a cop was struck on the side of the LIE and killed. So what did they do? Pass a law that says that anytime a cop is on the side of the road, you have to change lanes. So that there is an empty lane between them and the sidepass. You should see people trying to change lanes when they see a cop pulled over. It puts everyone else's life at risk. But none of our lives have any value when compared to the life of one cop. It's really amazing. I refuse to do it. And have yet to be be pulled over for the infraction.
Texas did something similar here a few years ago. you either have to move over a lane or slow down at least to 20 miles an hour for the cops safety. they also tried amending that particular law by adding a death penalty possibility for those that didn't do such things.
 
Back
Top