Don't annoy a police officer

[growalot]

Lets go over this...wording is every thing   it does not say that the annoying,alarming or harassing has to be  kicking, shoving or physical contact. They are two different sentences separated by another sentence...it does not say the first wording is a connection to the physical contact part of the 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.
S 2. This act shall take effect on the first of November next succeed-
ing the date on which it shall have become a law.

  

 

 

 

( misread)

Edited June 7, 2013 by growalot

[ants]

A physical altercation was always a felony with a cop.  At least I thought it was.

 

 

Only if the cop is injured as a result of the altercation.

[WNYBuckHunter]

No, there has to be physical contact.

 

Thats not what it says.

[WNYBuckHunter]

Only if the cop is injured as a result of the altercation.

 

No, if you touch an officer, especially in an aggressive manor, you can be charged with assault currently. This law would take it even further.

[Pygmy]

Just as an aside, I'm not sure why anyone would want to "annoy" a person who carries a gun and a baton..

BTW..I read it the same way WNYBuckhunter does..

[ants]

No, if you touch an officer, especially in an aggressive manor, you can be charged with assault currently. This law would take it even further.

 

Where are you getting that info from ??

[WNYBuckHunter]

Where are you getting that info from ??

 

Go poke a LEO in the chest and see what happens.

[Water Rat]

What if the police / peace officer is retired............nothing ?

[ants]

Go poke a LEO in the chest and see what happens.

 

 

You will more than likely be arrested, but for harassment  not for assault.

[jjb4900]

I bet 95% of people, as responsible adults, never get into a physical altercation with another adult, let alone with a police officer.......I wouldn't get too worked up over this one.

[WNYBuckHunter]

I bet 95% of people, as responsible adults, never get into a physical altercation with another adult, let alone with a police officer.......I wouldn't get too worked up over this one.

 

I guess you are misunderstanding what the law changes. It has nothing to do with physical altercations. If this passes, you can be arrested for flipping an officer the bird, or cursing at them, and charged with a class E felony. Say you ask an officer a question, and they dont want to answer, then you ask again or ask why they wont answer. That could be construed as "annoying" the office. Bam, class E felony. The wording of this law is way too general and open to interpretation.

[growalot]

Bet that's what ppl in Cuba once said...

[jjb4900]

I guess you are misunderstanding what the law changes. It has nothing to do with physical altercations. If this passes, you can be arrested for flipping an officer the bird, or cursing at them, and charged with a class E felony. Say you ask an officer a question, and they dont want to answer, then you ask again or ask why they wont answer. That could be construed as "annoying" the office. Bam, class E felony. The wording of this law is way too general and open to interpretation.

under this proposed law, there has to be physical contact.....flipping the bird is not physical contact, nor is cursing

[growalot]

OK so I posted the Bill and tried to show where it does not connect the terms intent,annoy,and harass to the physical contact part of the law..

 

That said I'm willing to re think my interpretation  IF you can show me  a clear cut  connection...mind you knowing the word definitions...between the passive wording of assault, to the  physical  term/wording of same , in this bill.

[jjb4900]

I don't see where the terms are not connected......it's pretty much written the way the regular harassment law is written only now it adds an aggravating factor that bumps it up from a violation to a felony.....you need an injury for an assault, but not for harassment. There's numerous ways to subject another to physical contact and to list them all would take pages.........cursing and flipping the bird would not fall under this law. 

[jjb4900]

here's the way the "standard" harassment is worded...................

 240.26 Harassment in the second degree.

A person is guilty of harassment in the second degree when, with
intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person:
1. He or she strikes, shoves, kicks or otherwise subjects such other
person to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to do the same; or
2. He or she follows a person in or about a public place or places; or
3. He or she engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts
which alarm or seriously annoy such other person and which serve no
legitimate purpose.
Subdivisions two and three of this section shall not apply to
activities regulated by the national labor relations act, as amended,
the railway labor act, as amended, or the federal employment labor
management act, as amended.
Harassment in the second degree is a violation.

 

[growalot]

This is where they are not connected... please note the placement of OR

Also in your postng ...lines 2 &3

¹or conjunction \ər, ˈȯr, Southern also ˈär\

 

 

Definition of OR

1

—used as a function word to indicate an alternative <coffee or tea> <sink or swim>, the equivalent or substitutive character of two words or phrases <lessen or abate>, or approximation or uncertainty <in five or six days>

2

archaic : either

3

archaic : whether

4

—used in logic as a sentential connective that forms a complex sentence which is true when at least one of its constituent sentences is true — compare disjunction

 

Quote

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.
S 2. This act shall take effect on the first of November next succeed-
ing the date on which it shall have become a law.

 

A person is guilty of harassment in the second degree when, with
intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person:
1. He or she strikes, shoves, kicks or otherwise subjects such other
person to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to do the same; or
2. He or she follows a person in or about a public place or places; or
3. He or she engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts
which alarm or seriously annoy such other person and which serve no
legitimate purpose.

 

 

(sp)

Edited June 7, 2013 by growalot

[growalot]

before you say any thing ...note line three and the word PERCEPTION

alarm noun \ə-ˈlärm\

 

 

Definition of ALARM

1

usually alarum archaic : a call to arms <the angry trumpet sounds alarum — Shakespeare>

2

: a signal (as a loud noise or flashing light) that warns or alerts; also : a device that signals <set the alarm to wake me at seven>

3

: sudden sharp apprehension and fear resulting from the perception of imminent danger

4

: a warning notice

 

Edited June 7, 2013 by growalot

[growalot]

This is my last word on this

One might say WTH she's over thinking this or entirely too hung up on words...but words and their interpretation can give or take away ones freedoms.

 We live in a logistic society and every thing we do hangs on words. Government officials know this. They spend millions of our tax payers dollars hiring ppl that know how to spin words to their favor...have you not prepared your own taxes????

When Bills are passed and laws made........ do you really think they are done with the idea that any interpretation would be to your benefit over that of government? Why do you think  that the one thing they make very clear to the public is....Ignorance of the law is no excuse?

 

(sp)

Edited June 7, 2013 by growalot

[WNYBuckHunter]

under this proposed law, there has to be physical contact.....flipping the bird is not physical contact, nor is cursing

 

Please, point out where it states there has to be physical contact.

[jjb4900]

Please, point out where it states there has to be physical contact.

it's in the last line "subjects such person to physical contact"..............I would think the "otherwise" would be spitting on, throwing stuff on, etc.

Edited June 7, 2013 by jjb4900

[WNYBuckHunter]

Yes, I see that, but what about this part

 

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

 

Thats the meat and potatoes here, and it mentions nothing about physical contact until later in the wording. I dont know, maybe Im misreading it, but I dont think I am.

[jjb4900]

I think you are misreading it........ it's when someone subject's them to physical contact while they're performing their official duty, and the purpose of the contact is to harass, annoy or alarm......without the physical contact, you haven't completed the crime.

[WhitetailAddict11]

As someone who is working towards a career in law enforcement I am disappointed in the amount of resentment towards police officers, especially Biz-O-Worlds comments, that's just too much man. I know there's some real dink cops out their but there is some great ones too. Walk a day in their shoes and I think you may feel different.

[orion]

WNYBuckHunter.  Finish the sentence.

 

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

 

Its pretty clear to me its physical contact