This is seriously troubling

[ateamstupid]

Don't tell that to the "Libertarians" on here who suddenly morph into big government shills whenever cops are involved.

First the NYPD cops with machine guns who are assigned to counter-terrorism/protest handling, as if those two are comparable, now this. This is going to get ugly.

[Rupert Pupkin]

This is outrageous. I can't believe they want harsher penalties for people who assault police officers. If I am at a rally or protest, I should be allowed to assault a police officer without fear of being charged with a felony.

Nowhere in the article did it say anything about the definition of resisting arrest being changed. Nice way to totally mischaracterize the facts. If you are at a protest and you lay down and let your body go limp, that is not resisting arrest. If you strike an officer, that is resisting arrest. I don't think there is too much confusion there.

I am not a person who think cops can do no wrong. If there is misconduct on the part of a policeman, he needs to be held accountable. I think police should actually be held to an even higher standard than civilians. That being said, I'm not going to second-guess every split second decision a police officer makes. I will give them the benefit of the doubt on a close call. But there are plenty of times where there is misconduct where it is not a close call. In those cases, I will be the first person to call for the officer to be fired and maybe even charged with a crime if applicable.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

This is outrageous. I can't believe they want harsher penalties for people who assault police officers. If I am at a rally or protest, I should be allowed to assault a police officer without fear of being charged with a felony.

Nowhere in the article did it say anything about the definition of resisting arrest being changed. Nice way to totally mischaracterize the facts. If you are at a protest and you lay down and let your body go limp, that is not resisting arrest. If you strike an officer, that is resisting arrest. I don't think there is too much confusion there.

I am not a person who think cops can do no wrong. If there is misconduct on the part of a policeman, he needs to be held accountable. I think police should actually be held to an even higher standard than civilians. That being said, I'm not going to second-guess every split second decision a police officer makes. I will give them the benefit of the doubt on a close call. But there are plenty of times where there is misconduct where it is not a close call. In those cases, I will be the first person to call for the officer to be fired and maybe even charged with a crime if applicable.

I just love it when you rail against a point that wasn't made. If you assaulted a police officer you would be charged with ASSAULT Rupe. ASSUALT <> Resisting Arrest. Ateam NAILED IT. Resisting arrest is basically anything the cops want it to be. You mouth off to them and they rough you up well you were resisting arrest. Why were they trying to arrest you in the first place? Try the catch all "impeding pedestrian traffic" which again is anything they want it to be.

http://www.thefutureorganization.com...inking-cap.gif

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

I just love it when you rail against a point that wasn't made. If you assaulted a police officer you would be charged with ASSAULT Rupe. ASSUALT <> Resisting Arrest. Ateam NAILED IT. Resisting arrest is basically anything the cops want it to be. You mouth off to them and they rough you up well you were resisting arrest. Why were they trying to arrest you in the first place? Try the catch all "impeding pedestrian traffic" which again is anything they want it to be.

http://www.thefutureorganization.com...inking-cap.gif

I will quote from the article. It says, "Police Commissioner Bill Bratton and top union official Pat Lynch called for harsher penalties for people who resist arrest and assault cops at public assemblies."

My take on the article was obviously different from your take. I don't think there is any confusion about what the definition is of "resisting arrest". When you are placed under arrest, if you put up a physical fight, that is "resisting arrest". It would probably be "assaulting a police officer" too. I don't know for sure. I'm not a lawyer.

Anyway, I don't think they're looking to charge people with any type of "resisting arrest", let alone "felony resisting arrest", for simple civil disobedience. What they want to address is the people who were physically fighting with the officers when they were being arrested. There was way too much of that going on during the recent protests.

With regard to people blocking traffic (whether pedestrian traffic or automobile traffic), there is no excuse for that. I would love to see how sympathetic you would be if you were stuck in your car, not moving for 2 hours, because some idiots were laying in the street, protesting. In that situation I bet you would be the first person to want those people arrested. When the police order people to disperse, they need to disperse. If they want to file a complaint later on, that is their right. As big of jerks as cops can be sometimes, I will still follow their order, if they give me an order. I may question it, but if they get belligerent, I'm going to comply. If I don't like it, I will complain later. How can we have a civil society if people think they can just ignore police orders? In a civilized society, we have to respect the authority of the police. If they misbehave, we can file a complaint, we can contact our city leaders, etc. But in the heat of a civil disturbance, we need to comply with police orders, unless we want to live in anarchy.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I will quote from the article. It says, "Police Commissioner Bill Bratton and top union official Pat Lynch called for harsher penalties for people who resist arrest and assault cops at public assemblies."

My take on the article was obviously different from your take. I don't think there is any confusion about what the definition is of "resisting arrest". When you are placed under arrest, if you put up a physical fight, that is "resisting arrest". It would probably be "assaulting a police officer" too. I don't know for sure. I'm not a lawyer.

Anyway, I don't think they're looking to charge people with any type of "resisting arrest", let alone "felony resisting arrest", for simple civil disobedience. What they want to address is the people who were physically fighting with the officers when they were being arrested. There was way too much of that going on during the recent protests.

With regard to people blocking traffic (whether pedestrian traffic or automobile traffic), there is no excuse for that. I would love to see how sympathetic you would be if you were stuck in your car, not moving for 2 hours, because some idiots were laying in the street, protesting. In that situation I bet you would be the first person to want those people arrested. When the police order people to disperse, they need to disperse. If they want to file a complaint later on, that is their right. As big of jerks as cops can be sometimes, I will still follow their order, if they give me an order. I may question it, but if they get belligerent, I'm going to comply. If I don't like it, I will complain later. How can we have a civil society if people think they can just ignore police orders? In a civilized society, we have to respect the authority of the police. If they misbehave, we can file a complaint, we can contact our city leaders, etc. But in the heat of a civil disturbance, we need to comply with police orders, unless we want to live in anarchy.

BUT THEY CAN IF THE LAW IS CHANGED.

And then you have to DEFEND yourself against a FELONY which if convicted of will change your life forever in a negative way. If Obama proposed such a law you would be the first one POUNDING the TABLE screaming about loss of civil rights and us as a country moving closer to a Police state.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

BUT THEY CAN IF THE LAW IS CHANGED.

And then you have to DEFEND yourself against a FELONY which if convicted of will change your life forever in a negative way. If Obama proposed such a law you would be the first one POUNDING the TABLE screaming about loss of civil rights and us as a country moving closer to a Police state.

That is not true. The law will not change the definition of resisting arrest. You are acting like this law will make it easier for the police to charge people with resisting arrest and that police will now be able to charge people with resisting arrest for almost anything. This law will not make it any easier for the police to charge a person with resisting arrest. The only thing this law will do is increase the penalty for resisting arrest.

This article doesn't go into too much detail, so I don't know what the exact criteria will be in deciding whether a person will be charged with a felony rather than a misdemeanor. But common sense tells me that there will be specific guidelines. In the end, it will be up to the DA to decide on each individual case. They're not going to be charging people with a felony who did nothing. That's not what the law is going to allow and that's not what the DA would do.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

That is not true. The law will not change the definition of resisting arrest. You are acting like this law will make it easier for the police to charge people with resisting arrest and that police will now be able to charge people with resisting arrest for almost anything. This law will not make it any easier for the police to charge a person with resisting arrest. The only thing this law will do is increase the penalty for resisting arrest.

This article doesn't go into too much detail, so I don't know what the exact criteria will be in deciding whether a person will be charged with a felony rather than a misdemeanor. But common sense tells me that there will be specific guidelines. In the end, it will be up to the DA to decide on each individual case. They're not going to be charging people with a felony who did nothing. That's not what the law is going to allow and that's not what the DA would do.

For someone not knowing the criteria you have no problem stating in certainty what the DA will do. The fact is this CAN BE ABUSED and you can't tell me that at some point it won't be in at least 1 case. Your whole entire argument is based upon what a reasonable person SHOULD do. Note to Rupe there are unreasonable people out there who think nothing of convicting someone of a felony if it will enhance their future.