Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"otherwise has physical contact" is meant to be contact on a similar level to the acts explicity mentioned. If they didn't have that in there, then someone could say, "Hurr, I didn't kick the cop, I kneed him!" and they would be absolutely right.
And for the record, I have no problem with cops wearing body cams. I think it's a great idea.
As far as the article you linked, I can't get the entire page to load, but I can see this sentence,
Please explain how this law allows cops to arrest anyone they dislike? Unless cops only dislike people who happen to kick or shove them...
Obviously, it's not just annoying a police officer that's a felony. You have to annoy a cop, and also "take any type of physical action to try to intimidate" him. It's lucky that we can trust cops to provide truthful and accurate witness testimony, because otherwise this law could be used to arrest and convict people on a very thin pretext!
Obviously, it's not just annoying a police officer that's a felony. You have to annoy a cop, and also "take any type of physical action to try to intimidate" him. It's lucky that we can trust cops to provide truthful and accurate witness testimony, because otherwise this law could be used to arrest and convict people on a very thin pretext!
If your logic about why this shouldn't be a law (which it isn't), is so vague that it boils down to "Well, the cops could lie about what happened", then we basically shouldn't have penal codes to begin with because that can be applied to virtually anything.
If your logic about why this shouldn't be a law (which it isn't), is so vague that it boils down to "Well, the cops could lie about what happened", then we basically shouldn't have penal codes to begin with because that can be applied to virtually anything.
Well judging by past examples, LE has shown it also needs to policed and not given a free hand.
Obviously, it's not just annoying a police officer that's a felony.
Dude, the the title of your thread is, literally, "New york bill would make it a crime to ‘annoy’ police". You're misrepresenting the text of the bill and getting all worked up.
I'm always surprised by complaints like these. Okay maybe it's a slippery slope but as a productive member of society, how often do you interact with the police for this to be a real issue? Only the fringe element of society is constantly bothered by these laws. Ultimately I blame the economy. Too many people with too much time on their hands.
Dude, the the title of your thread is, literally, "New york bill would make it a crime to ‘annoy’ police". You're misrepresenting the text of the bill and getting all worked up.
I'm not worked up. It's very vague and ripe for abuse. The title was from the article I posted. The links I posted point out what's wrong with the bill. Like you said it was defeated in the Assmebly this yr (after passing the Senate in June 2013), but returned to the Senate.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
