Annoying a police officer in NY could get YOU FOUR YEARS in prisonPosted by Jade Wingard on Saturday, June 8th, 2013 @ 9:22 pm.
NEW YORK—A bill has just passed the New York Senate making it a felony to ‘annoy’ a law enforcement officer.
On June 5, 2013 the bill (S.2402) passed, leaving it up to the House of Representatives on whether or not it becomes a law.
Language is vaguely contained in the bill of what it means to “annoy, harass, alarm or threaten” an officer; to establish the crime of aggravated harassment of a police officer or peace officer; or if a person contacted the officer physically with the intent to “ annoy, harass, threaten or alarm” they would be guilty of aggravated harassment and could spend up to four years in prison for being a “nuisance.”
Of course “harassing and threatening” a lawman is a legit crime in most states; but as far as to “annoy or alarm” a lawman, many believe this bills is going a bit too far.
Example: Are the above folks ‘annoying’ the local gendarmerie by fishing with donuts? What if they’re merely attempting to exercise their freedom of speech and exhibiting something they feel strongly about, and don’t feel words are enough?
And what of the ever-annoying (to a cop) “videotaping of a police officer in the line of duty”? Surely THAT’S quite annoying…especially when their ‘line of duty’ involves beating/macing/TASERing a restrained suspect…or someone who’s done nothing wrong.
This, folks, is where it’s going.
This is how the authorities take away our rights incrementally.
Did anyone in New York think to ask what the legislature’s intent was with this law? Did they suggest that it was to get closer to taking away a private citizen’s RIGHT to chronicle on videotape what public servants are doing when they’re in the line of duty, expending taxpayers’ funds?
They should have. And make no mistake. If this is successful in New York, it will spread quickly. And Illinois is just all OVER that action.
Be sure if this kind of garbage legislation infects our state, we tell our representatives unequivocally that we ARE NOT INTERESTED in any more rights being taken away from us incrementally…even though the legislators will argue that we don’t have a “right” to “annoy” a copy, we must argue back that we have a “right” to be free from oppressive government…and this is the very definition of it.
Short URL: http://www.disclosurenewsonline.com/?p=23223