Search results

So, yeah, obviously not for disrespectin’ yo a police officer. New York State Assembly | Bill Search and Legislative Information

It’s different because you have to earn a suspension somehow, meaning an improper act as already occurred. It’s the same with unlicensed operator (ticket) and suspended driving license (arrest).

While the trial itself in reality is rarely lengthy, the process of getting to an actual trial is governed by numerous factors. What the unknowing person considers "speedy" is definitely no the reality of what the law considers a reasonable amount of time. It's too much to go into right now but...

Well that's basically what I am saying. I'm ok with a firearm removal being approved by a judge after a hearing (notice I wrote that in my last post). A hearing meaning information was presented and discussed and properly weighed against the citizen's rights. Judges just signing off on these...

I don’t think you’d be happy with what constitutes a speedy trial in real life.

What’s to stop anything at any time? We try though when there is solid information which points to a possible crime being committed. Or any number of things, not related to guns or even crime necessarily. If someone is about to commit suicide, we don’t ignore it because well, what’s to stop...

I have no idea what was said months ago, but I am not necessarily against red flag laws as long as a judge is involved and a hearing is held. I recall saying that I don’t see why these laws are necessary though as I believe a judge can already remove firearms if deemed necessary.

A caricature of themselves, except the caricature is the only reality.

Definitely. At least to assess the situation to see if they are needed. Not to mention s LEO’s just to respond during the active part of the incident.

There’s an FBI office in El Paso, I have their coin. They aren’t in every city in the country.

CNN’s headline article is already Cory Booker’s statement on this shooting. I guess it’s obvious who they are pushing this time.

I repeat, I’m not getting into a discussion over the difference between on duty police officers and people who aren’t on-duty police officers. Pointless, we disagree. Enough said.

Ask the sponsors I suppose. Like I said earlier, I am not engaging in a discussion between the differences between on-duty cops and “the guy with the hat you don’t like.” We’ll never find common ground.

I emailed my assemblyman to ask for the text of the bill. I will post it here if he sends it. Nothing else matters besides the text of the bill, especially not articles written by anyone besides the authors of said bill. That should go without saying.

Now that’s one fucked motherfucker.

Harassment certainly applies, but thats a violation and DA’s are not prosecuting violations anymore.

I certainly don’t think it is, but I’m not going to rehash arguments regarding on-duty police officers being different under the law than non-police officers. It’s a topic we’re better off mutually agreeing to disagree on.

Why? It only covers dumping water or other liquids on cops. Why is that so conceptually stupid as a crime?

Not knocking you, but I’ve put it in this thread numerous times: Assault requires a visible injury or substantial pain in NY.

Yeah but that’s at least attempted assault. They are throwing a hard object at people. If you grasp the full vagaries of NY’s laws which SEEM to cover this type of incident, you’ll understand why it is necessary. Especially in our new world now where DA’s refuse to prosecute disorderly conduct...

Goes without saying. ;)

Assault requires injury in NY. We have attempted assault, but it requires intent. So simply tossing water on someone would not be assault. Criminal mischief definitely does apply. As of now, that’s what the rookies have been instructed to charge as the top charge should this trend continue.

Criminal mischief. As it stands, that’s what we will be charging at the least. Felony criminal mischief is only $250 or more, and since my vest can become less resistant after becoming soaked with water (causing the layers to separate), felony crim mis seems appropriate.

I searched Reilly’s proposed bills. It isn’t on the list yet. Might need a few days for it to be filed. Interestingly, he proposed a bill to create a charge for falsely filing a “red flag” order.

And I’m not being facetious, I just want the conversation based in fact. No disrespect, lol. ;)

After you see the truth of this bill, otherwise the conversation will just be muddled with bullshit. I’m done doing that here.

Ok get back to me then. No problem. But I’m not discussing a fallacy implanted by the anti-police media.

I need a progressive!

Changing the subject. We can talk about that next. Do you acknowledge that this bill does not regulate speech?

BTW, Reilly is my assemblyman and I see him often at events in my precinct. I am very proud of him for putting forth this bill and fuck the writers of this article for fooling you guys.

Wrong. Again, you’re falling for the headline. Read what I wrote and what I quoted. No one is trying to control speech. The bill covers one thing: throwing liquids on the police. That’s it. The headline was written specifically to elicit the reaction you’re having. It’s right there in black...

Damn driving through city anytime soon?

This and only this: ...buried in the middle of the article to ensure achievement of the desired effect (stoking anti-police hatred) while ensuring plausible deniability for legal reasons.

Read the article. You’re falling for the anti-police headline as well. It’s the agenda and you walked right into it.

You’re falling for the headline. Read the article. The bill covers one thing: throwing liquids onto police officers. The headline was crafted specifically to address the Darths of the world.

What a way to twist this one! Perfect anti-police headline.

Maybe I misread what you expected from Scalia.

You!

You have an unrealistic expectation and understanding of how solid legal precedent is set. We want a decision that will last centuries, not until the next appeal.

The Sullivan Law is not a part of this case.

Does right or left helix matter? I'm reading different things.

I am considering learning how to fletch my own arrows. I have 9 perfectly useable arrows sitting unused because they’ve got mangled vanes. The archery shop’s price to re-fletch is such that it’s better to just buy new arrows. I can’t see wasting these ones though. Does anyone fletch their own...

Two years ago, the detective squad Sgt from my precinct retired and started somewhere in TN. I don’t know where though.

If I hadn’t divorced my ex wife, we’d have been living in TN a few months ago. In 2014, we had taken our second trip out there scouting in the Franklin area for homes. I was just about to start researching police departments when we started having issues. We knew I had about 5 years to go with...

We need judges like this. A grossly biased decision is the most likely to be overturned. Hopefully she gets more gun cases and decides them the same way.

Ask your dear friend how many times he used his gun to intimidate and harass people. Then extrapolate!

Haha “I extrapolate and say 90%”. You posted a website then started making up numbers. Got it. You hate cops, just say it. It’s much easier than putting together a bullshit argument to hide something we all know is true. Be proud of your position at least. I’m proud of choosing cops over...

Here we go to make sure you can’t edit it. What statistic did you point out here? It must be there since you said so, but I don’t speak retard so I’m having trouble finding it.

What statistical fact did you point out? Unless you went back and edited the old post I quoted, you pointed out nothing but your own stupidity.

Damn that’s a lot of guns! Why all empty chambers though?