Tormund's police and other miscarriers of justice thread.

[thecryptile]

Officer Held on $1M Bail in Alleged Road Rage Shooting

A New Jersey police officer is being held on $1 million bail after he was charged with shooting and killing a man on a Maryland highway in an alleged road rage incident.

Forty-year-old Joseph Walker, a sworn officer with the Hudson County Prosecutor's Office, was charged with second degree murder and manslaughter after a shooting 36-year-old Joseph Harvey, Jr. Saturday on an off-ramp on Interstate 97 near Millersville, according to Maryland State Police.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/52152391

[Whitestripe]

I have had very little contact with the police, except for a stray traffic ticket or two. However, this past weekend, my son attended a birthday party. One of the party-goers dad is a police officer and came to pick up his kid straight from duty, in uniform in his cruiser. The 9 year olds thought it was pretty cool.

And for Peterbound: my kids also really like the fact that their bus driver is a volunteer fire fighter. They think it's super cool when Chris the Bus Driver gets to rescue them from the smoke house during fire prevention week. :)

[Brandon Stark]

Another incident of police brutality. A woman gets arrested for failure to pay a $100 fine, which is, in and of itself, completely absurd. Then, a CCTV shows two officers slamming her head into the nearby counter and the floor after trying to put handcuffs on her during a verbal argument between her and one of the officers after he cut off the phone call she was making to secure the money to get her out.

The two officers have been fired, but no charges have been filed (of course) and may not be. The woman filed a complaint which was completely ignored by the department until a city councilman obtained a copy of the video and sent it to a local news station.

Officers fired, should be indicted by either state police or FBI on charges beyond that, which it appears will happen. Shame on the dept if they ignored this, and if so further terminations of supervisors should take place.

[Brandon Stark]

The thing is, there is plenty of empirical evidence that this is everyday behavior. Every single day, somewhere in this country alone, a dirty or crooked cop is wronging an innocent civilian. Does that mean the bad outweigh the good? No. But it also means these aren't just anecdotal travesties.

The same could be said of most professions, if not all. Including ones that have just as high of stakes, like people in the medical profession. Still, no one's screaming Fuck the Doctors. Again, I get it - I'm not ignorant of the fact that this was the career I chose and that the climate toward police is what it is. I can still find it incongruous, though.

[Serious Callers Only]

The same could be said of most professions, if not all. Including ones that have just as high of stakes, like people in the medical profession. Still, no one's screaming Fuck the Doctors.

*tentatively raises hand*

[Relic]

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.”

']http://rt.com/usa/us...ment-crime-308/

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

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.”

']http://rt.com/usa/us...ment-crime-308/

Obviously, I think is this bullshit, although like Sturn pointed out in his thread before all the other posts disappeared, it does require some kind of physical contact. I will have an issue any time a special crime is created based upon one's contact with the police vis-a-vis police. Simply based upon pre-existing law, an identical harassment charge NOT against a police officer would be a misdemeanor. Further, it creates yet another nebulous crime that is almost totally reliant on the word of the officer vs. the word of the person charged with the crime, and absent any other extrinsic evidence, Joe Citizen ALWAYS loses this kind of credibility argument vs the police. Now whenever there's an incident with the police, you can add "aggravated harassment of a police officer" to "resisting arrest" and "obstruction of justice" to the list of charges that are almost certainly going to be brought against you.

[Relic]

Obviously, I think is this bullshit, although like Sturn pointed out in his thread before all the other posts disappeared, it does require some kind of physical contact.

Say you are in a crowd of protesters the police are trying to break up and are pushed into a cop. You have suddenly committed a felony. That's preposterous.

What happened to the other thread? I looked for it.

[Sturn]

What happened to the other thread? I looked for it.

Perhaps this was a better place for the discussion?

Say you are in a crowd of protesters the police are trying to break up and are pushed into a cop. You have suddenly committed a felony. That's preposterous.

No. Again Relic, you seem to be missing what the statute actually says and instead speculating on what could happen if parts of the law are completely ignored. I know it sounds much better to inflate the law into something more "preposterous". Slanted websites are already discussing how this law allows police to arrest people who simply annoyed them, which is completely wrong. Let's stick with what the law actually says please:

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.

Your earlier argument was the person only needed to annoy (actually I think you said just look at the cop wrong). You missed the part about, "strikes, shoves, kicks, or otherwise subjects such person to physical contact". Now you are saying if a person is accidentally shoved into a cop they are guilty of this proposed law? Huh? I hope you are never the cop or judge enforcing this law, because your interpretation of it would lead to all kinds of unlawful arrests and convictions.

It appears there are two parts. First, the person with, "intent" (so typical accidental stuff doesn't apply) must, "harass, annoy, threaten, or alarm", a cop. I have a problem with this part because it's so broad it's just waiting for abuse or misinterpretation until some case law comes along. The second part says this same person must also subject the cop to some sort of physical contact. So apparently you can still harass, annoy, threaten, and alarm a cop without being guilty of this statute (might be guilty of something else). You can also strike, shove, kick, or have other physical contact with a cop and also not be guilty of this statute (you will be guilty of something else if done with intent). Put them together, it's now a felony.

Let's discuss that shall we? Not some other law that has never been proposed.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Sturn,

What are your thoughts on creating a special category of crimes that can only be committed specifically against the police? I recall you saying in the past that you want "equal" justice for the police - do you take the position that creating a special class of victims (ie: the police) and then attaching a heightened series of penalties of the crime, creates a situation where police are given special treatment?

[Sturn]

Sturn,

What are your thoughts on creating a special category of crimes that can only be committed specifically against the police?

I completely agree that you shouldn't be able to annoy, threaten, harass ANY people while also shoving or kicking them. Most states already have anti-stalking laws that tend to be the threaten and harass part of this statute without a physical requirement. Do you think those should be used against people following and harassing police while they are trying to do their job? Or, like many judges have ruled, should cops not be victims of certain crimes because it is just part of their job?

Where I think (I don't really know) this law stems from is the "stalking" of police that sometimes gets physical (people getting in the way pointing cameras in your face, etc, while you are trying to do your job) that the average person never faces unless you are a Hollywood star.

Do you not want special laws to protect Police? Jailers? Teachers? Stars? Firemen? who face things that other citizens don't? These already exist. That special laws based on careers cat has already long been out of the bag.

I don't agree with the broad terms in the harassment part of the statute and with making it a felony. Either parts of this statute are already misdemeanors in many places. This statute seems to cash in 2 misdemeanors for a single felony.

[Relic]

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.

Now you are saying if a person is accidentally shoved into a cop they are guilty of this proposed law? Huh?

"Or otherwise subjects such person to physical contact".

Are we reading this differently? It me it states that ANY sort of physical contact with a police office while intending to "harass" or "annoy" (which is EXTREMELY subjective, on a level i don't think i need to go into, high pitched whiny voices annoy me im sure they annoy some cops too) can be considered a felony. Which is why i think my previous example stands as realistic scenario in a high stress situation. I'm at a rally, things get a little rough as cops try to move people out of a public space, i get pushed into a cop while he isn't looking in my direction, he over reacts, and im in cuffs. That's one of the ways i see this law being put to use. And based on how NYPD handled the Occupy movement i don't think my cynicism is unearned.

[Sturn]

"Or otherwise subjects such person to physical contact".

Are we reading this differently? It me it states that ANY sort of physical contact with a police office while intending to "harass" or "annoy" (which is EXTREMELY subjective, on a level i don't think i need to go into, high pitched whiny voices annoy me im sure they annoy some cops too) can be considered a felony. Which is why i think my previous example stands as realistic scenario in a high stress situation. I'm at a rally, things get a little rough as cops try to move people out of a public space, i get pushed into a cop while he isn't looking in my direction, he over reacts, and im in cuffs. That's one of the ways i see this law being put to use. And based on how NYPD handled the Occupy movement i don't think my cynicism is unearned.

It's physical contact AND the annoy part in combination. Your bold part above was the first time you said those two in combination. Your two examples thus far (the missing one and the one above) only had the annoy or physical parts, not both together. Your first example was just someone annoying a cop, leaving out the physical contact. Your second example just said someone was accidentally pushed into a cop. Where was the annoy? Accidental also means there was no intent. Two ways this statute would not apply.

Tangent: Can a person get arrested for something until all of the information is known? Sure. Your friend shoots a .22 rifle into the neighbor's cat, then ducks out of the window leaving you standing there while witnesses turn to see only you. The police arrive and with the witness statements, you get arrested. You are later un-arrested when your friend admits it was him who did it. I wouldn't use this example as a reason not to have a law against shooting cats. Someone accidentally getting shoved into another person is not a crime even if you can imagine a scenario where a cop would think, at first, it was a crime. The test of a new law should also not be could a dirty cop be able to abuse the law. Any law could be abused by a dirty cop. Good luck trying to make any statute dirty-cop-proof.

I completely agree with you (see my post #382 above) that, "INTENT TO HARASS, ANNOY, THREATEN OR ALARM", is way too open to interpretation. I don't believe the intent is to include an annoying voice or someone attending a rally. The problem is the broad wording that will need lots of case law or DA direction for it not to be way too open to interpretation.

Eta example: I find out Relic is my neighbor. His posts about police have been annoying me. I go for a walk immediately after reading one of his posts. He comes outside at the same time and he walks over and shakes my hand as we pass, knowing I'm a cop. Even though he has just annoyed me and made physical contact, there is no way a DA is going to prosecute under this statute. If I arrested Relic for this I could be looking for a new job. Intent of the law still applies even if word of the law is a problem.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_and_spirit_of_the_law http://en.wikipedia....Original_intent

[Sturn]

Where the hell is Torumund? This is his thread for Pete's sake, I want to hear his opinion.

[Fragile Bird]

I suspect the law will be used to arrest anyone who looks bothersome at a rally of any kind. The police rounded up thousands of people during the 2010 G8 summit in Toronto, peaceful protestors, tourists out walking, shoppers downtown, virtually none of whom were charged in the end. People who tried to run away when the police decided to move in on crowds got knocked down and beaten and charged with resisting arrest - amazing how that tactic has been adopted by police around the world. Those cases were thrown out of court as well, once videos shot by news organizations and individuals were examined. People are trying to sue police, but of course, try to identify who they were. Lots of pictures were taken of police who had removed their badges with their numbers on them so that they could not be identified.

And while that was going on, a group intent on disrupting the summit were allowed to march up Toronto's main drag and smash and burn things, doing hundreds and thousands of dollars worth of damage, and the police, who had been given several hundred million dollars to update equipment and weaponry, including a very fancy water cannon, stood by and did nothing, because they weren't sure what to do, ffs. They decided it was better for this group to rampage through the streets than stop them. Far easier to arrest peaceful protestors and passersby than actually confront violent protestors, even when you're the one in the body armour and helmet, carrying the shield and the baton. Unbelievable.

Throw in the fact that in many demonstration situations the police actually use agent provocateurs to stir up the crowds, like they did in Quebec at a G8 meeting, and did in Toronto, and do in Europe all the time. Incite the crowd and then round up the lot and throw them in jail.

[Ser Greguh]

Someone accidentally getting shoved into another person is not a crime even if you can imagine a scenario where a cop would think, at first, it was a crime. The test of a new law should also not be could a dirty cop be able to abuse the law. Any law could be abused by a dirty cop. Good luck trying to make any statute dirty-cop-proof.

Except that this sets a ridiculously subjective definition for what constitutes a "dirty cop." This statute very clearly does make someone accidentally getting shoved into a cop a crime. A dirty cop is someone who ignores or subverts the law. Relic's aforementioned scenario only requires them to be interpreting it in a very strict, literal manner. If I'm at a protest I take it as a foregone conclusion that I'm annoying the cops there, and so they will be looking for any excuse to arrest me and charge me with whatever they possibly can. This law gives them an excuse to take any kind of contact and use it as an excuse to charge you with a felony.

That it will be abused is a matter of when, not if, and not by "dirty cops" but by establishment hardasses who will publicly defend it with the text of the law.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

I completely agree that you shouldn't be able to annoy, threaten, harass ANY people while also shoving or kicking them. Most states already have anti-stalking laws that tend to be the threaten and harass part of this statute without a physical requirement. Do you think those should be used against people following and harassing police while they are trying to do their job? Or, like many judges have ruled, should cops not be victims of certain crimes because it is just part of their job?

I'm not sure what Court rulings you are referring to. Some Courts have ruled that laws enacting blanket restrictions against videotaping police on the job are unconstitutional - but those are special violations created specifically for the police, and of course they should be ruled unconstitutional. Of course, people are still occasionally arrested for videotaping the police notwithstanding that those laws are unconstitutional, and they still remain on the books in many states. But yes, I believe that police should have no expectation of privacy while they are on duty and/or performing their official functions and on public property. And that goes for public parking authority employees that patrol and ticket cars in public, municipal animal control workers when they go out into the public to deal with an animal, park rangers when they're out patrolling the trails, etc.

Where I think (I don't really know) this law stems from is the "stalking" of police that sometimes gets physical (people getting in the way pointing cameras in your face, etc, while you are trying to do your job) that the average person never faces unless you are a Hollywood star.

An awfully charitable interpretation of motive! In any case, filming the police while they are on duty should be allowed (and federal courts have already ruled that prohibitions against taping them are unconstitutional).

Do you not want special laws to protect Police? Jailers? Teachers? Stars? Firemen? who face things that other citizens don't? These already exist. That special laws based on careers cat has already long been out of the bag.

No, I don't. I don't think that, say, a legitimate harassment charge should be "upgraded" merely because of the victim's professional, regardless of whether that profession is a police officer, teacher, movie star, etc.

I don't agree with the broad terms in the harassment part of the statute and with making it a felony. Either parts of this statute are already misdemeanors in many places. This statute seems to cash in 2 misdemeanors for a single felony.

So what's the point of the statute? The police are already covered under the existing harassment law. Why create a special crime with increased penalties merely because of their profession?

[Sturn]

This statute very clearly does make someone accidentally getting shoved into a cop a crime.

No, it doesn't. You are leaving out the harassment/annoying part. There is also nothing in the statute that says "accidental" physical contact is included. Criminal intent applies to all laws.

Relic's aforementioned scenario only requires them to be interpreting it in a very strict, literal manner. If I'm at a protest I take it as a foregone conclusion that I'm annoying the cops there, and so they will be looking for any excuse to arrest me and charge me with whatever they possibly can. This law gives them an excuse to take any kind of contact and use it as an excuse to charge you with a felony.

I will give you this. I completely agree the annoy/harass part is way too broad. As I've said twice now it needs to be more specific or it's going to need lots of DA direction or case law to help ensure it isn't abused.

[Sturn]

An awfully charitable interpretation of motive! In any case, filming the police while they are on duty should be allowed (and federal courts have already ruled that prohibitions against taping them are unconstitutional).

I agree, as long as they aren't a threat to me or hinder the performance of my job. We've discussed this elsewhere where I gave these opinions, but the search function needs fixin'.

No, I don't. I don't think that, say, a legitimate harassment charge should be "upgraded" merely because of the victim's professional, regardless of whether that profession is a police officer, teacher, movie star, etc.

Then there are lots of laws out there you disagree with apparently. I was citing specific examples from my state (sans the movie star one).

So what's the point of the statute? The police are already covered under the existing harassment law. Why create a special crime with increased penalties merely because of their profession?

I thought I had explained above that I agree with you on this point.

[Merentha]

Sturn: What the law says and what the law will be used to do are very different things. The kid I linked earlier was charged with resisting arrest based on actions that were done before he was informed (and he might never have been) that he was under arrest. Ridiculous. Another kid I personally know was charged with resisting arrest because he was unable to comply with police orders because he'd literally been knocked out before the officers arrived on scene. I don't see this being used in any other way, and I must say I'm slightly incredulous that Sturn is debating this law under the actual merits of the law as if he hadn't yet figured out that the law in practice and application are entirely different, especially in cases where one side's word is always taken at face value and the requirements are nebulous at best. Anyone think the officer here http://www.nytimes.c...pogan.html?_r=0 would have been charged if there hadn't been exceedingly clear video of the incident in question? I don't. (For those not familiar, an officer crosses at least 15 feet to shove a cyclist off his bike and then charges him with assaulting a police officer) Bonus points for this argument, because the cyclist was charged with resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer. The officer, by the way, was acquitted of assault in this incidence, though he was removed from the force . http://gothamist.com...ulting_cycl.php Video here. This absolutely will be tacked on to almost every single arrest or contact with a police officer and you'd be foolish to say otherwise.

Also, even if every officer in the nation was an honest, upstanding individual who would never, ever abuse their authority and power, I would be wary about the "individual is aware that the person in question is a police officer" part, mostly because I hate the idea that an off-duty police officer has all of the protections of being a police officer with very few of the responsibilities. That is, say there is an officer, who is off-duty and drunk, which is fine, he totally has that right. This guy is able to claim all of the protections of being a police officer, in this case, making it a felony to touch, annoy, or otherwise bother him, without having to be sober. And he retains the ability to arrest people for it. Okay, sure, maybe that arrest will never make it to court. That still doesn't mean being arrested can't have some pretty negative impacts on your life. If the officer is being harassed, he has the ability to call the police and deal with it like any other civilian. If the officer feels like he is in danger for his life, well, he has the right to call the police like any other civilian.

Sturn, sorry I haven't weighed in on your story earlier. I'd missed it being posted, I'll look it over.