blue lives matter – Techdirt (original) (raw)

Arizona Attorney General Says It Won’t Enforce State’s Dumbass ‘No Recording Cops Within 8 Feet’ Law

from the sayonara,-shitheels dept

Because cops are the frailest of creatures and are actively harmed by people, you know, looking at them, legislators have made sure they’re ultra-protected by enacting super shitty laws that elevate cops above the people they serve.

“Blue Lives” laws insist cops’ lives are worth more than anyone else’s lives. They add years to sentences if the crime victim is a cop. Cops who claim to have been “assaulted” by someone whose rights they’ve violated can often avail themselves of “victims’ rights” laws to keep their names from being made public. Another subset of laws increases legal penalties for interfering with/assaulting “first responders,” even though it’s only cops that experience this sort of repercussive friction when doing their jobs.

(Has anyone ever been booked for assaulting a fireman/EMT? Yeah, I thought not. It’s only cops crying “assault” because someone failed to cuff themselves, retire to the back of a cruiser, and throw the book at themselves while booking themselves in at the local jail.)

Elected idiots seem to believe people with an obscene amount of discretionary power should be even more protected from the people they serve. That’s how asinine legislation becomes awful reality, even when those passing the laws should know better than to fuck with the First Amendment.

In July of 2022, then Arizona Governor Doug Doucey decided his state’s most idiotic legislators were right: cops deserve to be protected from people that actively observe their public activities. He signed into law a bill that prevented recording cops from any distance under 8 feet. How this would be enforced was left to the imaginations of cops who don’t like being filmed, despite plenty of court precedent guaranteeing this First Amendment right.

So, of course, the new law was immediately challenged in court. Within two months of its passage, a federal court had issued an injunction against the obviously unconstitutional statute — one even Arizona cops felt wasn’t worth defending.

Securing an injunction is always helpful. Forcing the law off the books, however, remains the best solution. And that appears to be where this law is headed, now that the state attorney general has decided it won’t waste its resources defending an obviously unconstitutional law.

The Arizona Attorney General agreed to settle a federal lawsuit against the state, declaring that a state statute that bans video recording within eight feet of law enforcement activity is unconstitutional.

[…]

In September, then-Attorney General Mark Brnovich refused to argue against the plaintiffs, entering a “non-opposition” notice in court, stating in part: “The Attorney General is not the proper party to defend the merits of (the statute) A.R.S. § 13-3732.”

On Wednesday, a representative for the current Arizona Attorney General, Kris Mayes, agreed to an injunction that finds the law violates the First Amendment and cannot be enforced.

That’s the substance of the state’s settlement [PDF] with those opposing the law. The settlement specifically agrees the statute violates the First Amendment and cannot survive constitutional scrutiny because it engages in content-based restriction (the recording of cops) and “chills a substantial amount of First Amendment protected activity.”

It’s always refreshing to see this sort of thing from state politicians and prosecutors. Other state AGs would have spent an untold amount of money defending an obviously unconstitutional law. But in Arizona — where’s it’s uber-fashionable to worship law enforcement — two consecutive AGs have told the state (and the former governor) they’re not going to go to bat for bad law. (Or, at least, not this one.)

Despite the AG’s affirmative veto of the law, one state rep — a former cop — still thinks citizens should be restricted when recording police officers performing their public duties.

Kavanagh, a former police officer himself, told 12News on Thursday that he does not believe current laws do enough to protect police from interference and does not believe that limits on distance would stop the public from holding police accountable.

“The people who oppose this law made it very clear that people standing one foot behind the officer is not interfering. The current obstruction law isn’t enough,” Kavanagh said. “I am not preventing videotaping. I’m just saying keep back so you don’t distract the officer.”

I don’t think the people “opposing” this law have “made it clear” that people should be allowed to climb into an officer’s hip pocket in order to record incidents and arrests. The only people in cops’ pockets are strawmen Rep. Kavanagh hopes will burn with enough brightness it will obscure his latent desire to protect cops from public accountability.

Kavanagh’s bullshit — one supported by none other than the former governor himself — is still going to cost Arizona taxpayers some money. Even with the AG bowing out early rather than wasting funds defending the indefensible, the AG’s office has agreed to pay $69,000 in legal fees to the prevailing parties. It may not seem like much but it does matter… at least to those still interested in protecting the rights of Arizonans — a group that does not include the former governor, Rep. Kavanagh, or his allies in the legislature.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, arizona, blue lives matter, kris mayes, mark brnovich, recording police

NY Legislators Offer Up Bill That Would Allow Cops To Sue People For Not Doing Enough Bootlicking

from the when-i-think-about-[cops],-i-touch-myself-...-i-touch-myself dept

I’m not sure what’s happening in the New York legislature, but a whole lot of NY politicians appear to believe law enforcement officers — some of the most powerful public servants in the nation — are some ultra-rare species of easily frightened lagomorphs, incapable of performing their jobs without being protected from the people they serve.

Last week, US Congresswoman Claudia Tenney served up a bill that would codify qualified immunity for law enforcement, claiming this was necessary because people whose rights have been trampled are too litigious and cops are dying at an alarming rate. Ignored were the uncomfortable facts that qualified immunity is an enabler of the bad apples who spoil the cop bunch and cops are dying of communicable viruses, rather than the guns and bullets of bad guys.

Following in the footsteps of Tenney’s bad bill and an unseemly amount of so-called “Blue Lives Matter” laws, comes this terrible legislative pitch from a handful of Nassau County (NY) lawmakers. Having utterly failed to read the room, these legislators think the time is right to convert cops (and other first responders) into a protected class. (via Adam Steinbaugh)

Here’s the bill’s [PDF] pitch in all-caps form:

A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE NASSAU COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE IN RELATION TO AMENDING THE NASSAU COUNTY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW TO PRECLUDE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST FIRST RESPONDERS

How does one “discriminate” against a “first responder,” which is an employment choice, rather than an immutable characteristic? Good question. But you’re not going to get a straight answer. Instead, you’re going to get gaslighted. Up is down, left is right, anti-police brutality protests violate the rights of citizens. Yes, you just read exactly what you think you read.

It is the judgment of this legislature that the recent widespread pattern of physical attacks and intimidation directed at the police has undermined the civil liberties of the community at large. It has been reported that over seven hundred federal, state and local law enforcement officers have sustained injury in civil unrest since the close of May of last year, according to United States Department of Justice data.

Even if it is accurate to say that nationwide protests against police violence resulted in an inordinate number of officers being injured, that should be expected. 2020 saw more than its share of protests — the sort of spike that could only produce a spike in officer injuries. But that is part of this job, just like qualified immunity, arbitration, lax oversight, the backing of powerful government officials, and a separate and unequal “bill of rights” are. The good comes with the bad. That’s the way it goes. But making this assertion ignores the inevitable result of an increased number of protests, as well as the years of nonexistent oversight and biased policing that led to the protests stemming from the casual murder of an unarmed black man by a white police officer in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

The pro-cop fanfic continues for several paragraphs. This would be normal if this were a Facebook group post rather than legislation being introduced by Long Island legislators. Dogs and cats living together indeed.

This Legislature notes with extreme concern that in many jurisdictions, outbreaks of destructive rioting and lawlessness have deliberately targeted and victimized law enforcement officers and other first responders. This Legislature further recognizes that the clear intent of some of these attacks is to hinder or prevent the police from performing their duty to enforce the law and safeguard society rom chaos and mass violence.

Ok. Whatever. Brace yourself. It’s gets even stupider.

It is the emphatic judgment of the Legislature that no law enforcement officer should be subjected to actual or threatened physical assault and abuse in the performance his or her duties ~ not only because police officers are human beings deserving of respect, dignity and equal protection of Law, but also because they are the indispensable first line of defense for everyone’s fundamental civil and human rights.

LOL. Cops are the protectors of civil and human rights. OK, Karen. Maybe if you think “protecting civil rights” means “oppressing anyone not as rich or as white as me.” Police are not about protecting rights. They love to violate those rights, resting peacefully in the fact that qualified immunity will get them off. Failing that, their extremely advantageous contracts with the cities they serve will allow them to be reinstated as law enforcement officers. Again and again and again. If cops really cared about human rights and civil liberties, they wouldn’t violate them so often. And they wouldn’t be so abjectly terrible about solving crimes perpetrated on the citizens they’re supposed to be acting as a “thin blue line” to protect against.

#NotAllCops tweeted the legislators:

Importantly, this Legislature expressly disavows any intent to excuse or minimize the ‘gravity of incidents of police misconduct that have occurred in this country, especially those which may be motivated by racial intolerance. Because these wrongful acts are done in the name of law, they are especially corrosive to the rule of law. We believe that our law enforcement personnel join us in condemning such misconduct. Yet acts of misconduct by individual officers can never under any circumstances justify the vilification of all law enforcement personnel or acts of violence directed at police.

Liars. You’re all liars. You won’t even “vilify” the “bad apples” you feel don’t represent the whole bunch. Until law enforcement is willing to clean up its own act, vilification of all police officers is justified. The presence of “good apples” does not un-rotten the rest of the barrel. Until law enforcement agencies are willing to treat abusive cops as the abusers they are, nothing will change.

You can read the rest of the preamble if you have a kink for vomiting in your own mouth. When you’re done, join the rest of us in reading the goddamn proposal, which is as dumb as it is stupid.

It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice for any person to harass, menace, assault or injure an individual due to such individual’s status as a first responder and such unlawful discriminatory practices are hereby prohibited. Where such first responder is in uniform, or is otherwise dearly identified as a first responder, there is an irrebuttable presumption that such harassment, menacing, assault or injury is motivated by such individual’s status as a first responder.

“Assault” already means inadvertently bumping into a police officer during an altercation/interaction. “Menace” tends to mean some officer states in court they felt “afraid.” Harassment is such a broad term that anything from phoning in bomb threats to “sent a couple of heated DMs” will be considered a violation. “Injure” is the only term that can be defined solidly by its results, but even then, it only means an officer sustained an injury in the line of duty — something that is bound to happen. But with this law in place, it means the officer can sue the person who injured them.

This isn’t just asinine. It’s also redundant. The definition of assault in this bill cite Sec. 120 of New York law — a section that already covers everybody being given even more legislative shielding by this bill. Brace yourself yet again, but this time for a fucking wall of text that already says assaulting “first responders” is its own crime.

With intent to prevent a peace officer, a police officer, prosecutor as defined in subdivision thirty-one of section 1.20 of the criminal procedure law, registered nurse, licensed practical nurse, sanitation enforcement agent, New York city sanitation worker, a firefighter, including a firefighter acting as a paramedic or emergency medical technician administering first aid in the course of performance of duty as such firefighter, an emergency medical service paramedic or emergency medical service technician, or medical or related personnel in a hospital emergency department, a city marshal, a school crossing guard appointed pursuant to section two hundred eight-a of the general municipal law, a traffic enforcement officer or traffic enforcement agent, from performing a lawful duty, by means including releasing or failing to control an animal under circumstances evincing the actor’s intent that the animal obstruct the lawful activity of such peace officer, police officer, prosecutor as defined in subdivision thirty-one of section 1.20 of the criminal procedure law, registered nurse, licensed practical nurse, sanitation enforcement agent, New York city sanitation worker, firefighter, paramedic, technician, city marshal, school crossing guard appointed pursuant to section two hundred eight-a of the general municipal law, traffic enforcement officer or traffic enforcement agent, he or she causes physical injury to such peace officer, police officer, prosecutor as defined in subdivision thirty-one of section 1.20 of the criminal procedure law, registered nurse, licensed practical nurse, sanitation enforcement agent, New York city sanitation worker, firefighter, paramedic, technician or medical or related personnel in a hospital emergency department, city marshal, school crossing guard, traffic enforcement officer or traffic enforcement agent.

What this law does is make it way more expensive for citizens to interact with officers who feel more offended than usual that someone bumped into them during the policing of a protest or traffic stop or an unjustified pat down or whatever

In addition to civil liability under subsection three of this section, any ‘person found to have violated the provisions of this section shall be subject to a civil penalty of no more than twenty-five thousand dollars per violation that shall be recoverable for and pavable to the aggrieved first responder. Where such violation is committed in the course of participating in riot. the penalty shall be no more than fifty thousand dollars.

AND THAT’S NOT ALL. Civil penalties also apply:

A first responder claiming to be aggrieved by a discriminatory practice under “subsection one of this section may commence a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction for declaratory and injunctive relief and to recover ‘compensatory damages, punitive damages and attorney’s fees and costs and for ‘such other relief as the court may deem appropriate. Where violations of this section occur during the course of a riot in response to which the first responder is deployed such monetary damages shall be trebled. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this title, such civil action mav be commenced without ‘exhaustion of any administrative remedies which may be available to the first responder. A court of competent jurisdiction is hereby authorized to determine and award attorney’s fees to a prevailing first responder in such a civil action. A civil action commenced under this section must be within three years after the occurrence of the alleged unlawful discriminatory practice.

It’s a garbage law written by garbage legislators that will be embraced by garbage people, many of them also garbage legislators and garbage people currently employed as law enforcement officers. These legislators have gazed upon the current national climate and decided it’s the people they serve who are wrong. And, in fact, they have abdicated their responsibility to serve them. Instead, they will serve their own interests: fellow government employees who have seen multiple days of reckoning all over the nation and decided (as always) that it’s the governed who have stepped out of line.

Filed Under: blue lives matter, discrimination, first responders, nassau county, police, protected class

Georgia Governor Passes Law Granting Cops Protected Status For 'Bias-Based' Crimes

from the saving-the-protectors-from-the-protected dept

Georgia governor Brian Kemp — last seen here trying to turn his own election security problems into a Democrat-lead conspiracy — has just proven he’s unable to read the room. The governor can’t read the room in his own state, much less the current state of the nation. Less than a month after the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis triggered nationwide protests against police violence, officers in Atlanta were involved in a controversial killing of a Black man in a fast food restaurant parking lot.

The state of the nation is pretty much the same as it is in Georgia. Now is not the time to be offering police officers even more legal protections, considering how much they’ve abused the ones they already have. Idiotic bills touted by legislators saying stupid things like “blue lives matter” come and go. Mostly they go, since they’re either redundant or unworkable. These laws try to turn a person’s career choice into an immutable characteristic, converting some of the most powerful people in the nation into a class that deserves protection from the public these officers are sworn to serve.

It’s now possible to commit a hate crime against a cop in Georgia, thanks to Kemp and his party-line voters.

Gov. Brian Kemp signed a proposal into law Wednesday that Republicans pushed to grant police new protections despite stiff opposition from critics who said it creates a messy tangle of legal problems. […]

_In a statement, Kemp said he took action because he has attended the funerals of too many law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty, and he called the measure a “step forward as we work to protect those who are risking their lives to protect us._”

“While some vilify, target and attack our men and women in uniform for personal or political gain, this legislation is a clear reminder that Georgia is a state that unapologetically backs the blue,” Kemp said.

The standalone bill was a concession to state Republicans, who refused to help pass an actual hate crime bill without being able to give more protections to already-very well-protected police officers. Not only does the law make it a crime to engage in “bias motivated intimidation” of police officers and first responders, it gives them a way to exact revenge on anyone they believe has wronged them. From the bill [PDF]:

A peace officer shall have the right to bring a civil suit against any person, group of persons, organization, or corporation, or the head of an organization or corporation, for damages, either pecuniary or otherwise, suffered during the officer’s performance of official duties, for abridgment of the officer’s civil rights arising out of the officer’s performance of official duties, or for filing a complaint against the officer which the person knew was false when it was filed.

Critics of the bill believe this addition to state law would give officers a way to sue anti-police protesters for whatever harms officers feel they’ve suffered while policing demonstrations. And it would affect more than protesters. Anyone interacting with a police officer runs the risk of being sued because “damages suffered” is limited only by the officer’s imagination and the court’s tolerance. Even if the suit is baseless, the defendant still has to show up and defend themselves, using their own money while officers play litigation roulette with the taxpayers’ bankroll.

Then there’s the heart of the law, which makes certain acts hate crimes:

A person commits the offense of bias motivated intimidation when such person maliciously and with the specific intent to intimidate, harass, or terrorize another person because of that person’s actual or perceived employment as a first responder:

(1) Causes death or serious bodily harm to another person; or

(2) Causes damage to or destroys any real or personal property of a person because of actual or perceived employment as a first responder without permission and the amount of the damage exceeds 500.00orthevalueofthepropertydestroyedexceeds500.00 or the value of the property destroyed exceeds 500.00orthevalueofthepropertydestroyedexceeds500.00.

Those acts are punishable by five years and/or a $5,000 fine. And the acts described are already crimes. Doubling down on crimes to make cops feel special may actually make things more ridiculous, as the ACLU has explained.

According to the bill, anyone found guilty of the death, serious bodily harm or destruction of more than 500worthofpropertyofafirstresponder,specificallybecauseofhisorheroccupation,wouldfacebetweenoneandfiveyearsinprisonand/orafineupto500 worth of property of a first responder, specifically because of his or her occupation, would face between one and five years in prison and/or a fine up to 500worthofpropertyofafirstresponder,specificallybecauseofhisorheroccupation,wouldfacebetweenoneandfiveyearsinprisonand/orafineupto5,000.

Currently, the punishment for murder includes death, life in prison without the possibility of parole or life in prison.

Since the targeted killing of a police officer could be considered “bias motivated intimidation” of a first responder, the ACLU says a legal argument called the “rule of lenity” requires courts to pursue the charge that is the most favorable to a defendant.

And the most lenient charge is the new law, which calls for only a five-year sentence (maximum) for killing a cop if the crime appears to have been motivated by anti-cop bias. Prosecutors who want to do the most damage to cop-killers won’t be pursuing bias charges. They’ll ignore the new law completely. Legislators were apparently made aware of this conflict prior to the bill’s passage but apparently figured it would sort itself out once it became law.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Jesse Stone, a Waynesboro Republican and attorney, said he was made aware of a potential problem with the legislation late Friday.

_“I think if they were charged with bias motivated (intimidation), that might be a concern,” said Stone, who voted for HB 838 and is retiring this year. “I haven’t studied it, but I think it’s something that should be looked into._”

Yes, the best time to look into potential problems with legislative proposals is after they’ve become law. Everything about this new law is terrible, including its path to the governor’s desk. It passed with one vote, divided entirely along party lines. And it shows one party is far more concerned with pandering to its powerful law enforcement voter base than protecting citizens from their public servants.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, blue lives matter, brian kemp, georgia, hate crime, police, police rights

Alabama Lawmakers Think The Time Is Right To Make Assaulting A Cop A 'Hate Crime'

from the let's-do-the-stupid-thing-again dept

Another stupid, pointless effort to turn protectors and servants into professional victims is being mounted in Alabama. Cops can barely be bothered to educate themselves on the laws they’re enforcing, but they’re usually all over the ones that allow them to turn things they don’t like into criminal activity.

It’s (yet another) “blue lives matter” law being foisted upon citizens by legislators who are altogether too certain they’re in the right. Here’s the backer of the proposed law that would turn cops into a protected group making a claim that’s proven false before the end of the article at PoliceOne.

“Everyone agrees that it should be a hate crime to shoot a police officer,” said state Sen. Cam Ward, R-Alabaster, and chairman of the Alabama State Senate Judiciary Committee where the hate crime legislation is reviewed. “I don’t know anyone who opposes that. The question is, ‘What gets tacked on?’ Yes, you can find a bipartisan solution.”

Everyone?

[Sen. Vivian] Figures said she favors “of doing everything we can to protect our law enforcement officials.” But she said she’s unsure if a hate crime law is the right vehicle.

The bill, written by Senator Chris Elliott, is his second attempt to push a cop-friendly hate crime bill through the legislature. Elliott possibly figures he’ll have a better chance this year because more cops have been killed in Alabama than usual. There have been six law enforcement officers killed by residents this year, which puts the state towards the top of the killed in the line of duty list.

The senator who spoke for everyone (while being wrong about what “everyone” agreed with) doesn’t want this bill tainted with riders that would provide similar hate crime protections for others more deserving of these protections. Sen. Figures (who does not agree with Ward’s assertion that “everyone agrees”) may have been responsible for the death of Elliott’s previous effort when she added an LGBTQ amendment to his 2018 “blue lives matter” bill. That’s the sort of “tacking on” Ward is hoping to prevent here, in order to give cops more protections while leaving more vulnerable residents less protected.

Adding to the stupidity is the fact that police already benefit from a law that provides an extra deterrent to killing cops.

In Alabama, killing a law enforcement while they are on the line of duty is an aggravating factor that is punishable by the death penalty.

These proposals have made periodic appearances in the years following the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. The shooting was a flash point in police-community relationships. With the current federal administration strongly pro-law enforcement, state-level legislators perhaps feel emboldened to pursue legislation that does little to protect cops, but everything to put more distance between law enforcement and the people they serve.

These proposals are reactionary in the worst sense of the word. They’re legislative affirmations that might makes right and the people with most might will continue to consolidate power. There’s little evidence that suggests these laws are justified at any level. Most killings of cops are impromptu, not planned assaults inspired by an insatiable hate for law enforcement.

The general public receives zero benefit from these laws. All that happens is a very well-protected group of government employees gets even more protections. The laws become vehicles for abuse and there’s only so much courts can do to protect citizens if their “representatives” decide to serve fellow government employees rather than their constituents.

The upside here is these proposals — at least here in Alabama — can be neutralized by adding amendments that would extend protections to people who don’t wear the blue — especially members of the public that far too many legislators don’t feel are worthy of any protection.

Filed Under: alabama, blue lives matter, hate crime, police

Pennsylvania Cops Abusing A Bad Law To Arrest People For Saying Angry Things To Them

from the but-people-actually-hate-us,-they-exclaimed-with-their-guns-at-low-ready dept

If you ever need a bad law abused, just look for a police officer. The police like to steer clear of knowledge whenever possible because it helps them out when legal liability is on the line. Qualified immunity rewards cops who work hard to make sure they don’t know the laws they’re enforcing. But when it comes to laws officers can use to punish those who fail to show them the respect they think they’re owed, officers know those inside and out.

Legislators have made things worse by passing “Blue Lives Matter” laws that grant extra legal protections to a class of Americans no one but cops think is a class routinely subject to oppression or bias. While a “Blue Lives Matter” law makes it easier to intimidate the general public, it’s not a necessity. Officers have used bad laws — like criminal defamation — to hassle and silence critics.

Over in Pennsylvania, a hate crime law crafted to protect ethnic and religious groups is being used by cops to arrest people for calling cops the sort of things cops get called all the time.

On Sept. 23, 2016, Robbie Sanderson, a 52-year-old Black man from North Carolina, was arrested for retail theft by in Crafton, a small town near Pittsburgh.

During the arrest, Sanderson called police “Nazis,” “skinheads” and “Gestapo,” according to an affidavit of probable cause filed by the Crafton Borough police.

For that, he was charged with a hate crime.

Someone needs to explain to these cops they’re not an ethnic or religious group. They’re just cops. It’s not a race or a religion, no matter how much law enforcement tries to set itself apart from the people it’s supposed to be serving. Being called a “Nazi” is not “ethnic intimidation.” Neither are the following examples provided by The Appeal, even if the language used actually seems to fit better with the legislative intent.

In January that year, Sannetta Amoroso, a 43-year-old Black woman from Pittsburgh, was charged with multiple counts of first-degree felony ethnic intimidation by McKees Rocks police Officer Brandy Harcha. According to police, Amoroso became angry while trying to report a crime and said “I’m going to kill all you white bitches” and “death to all you white bitches.”

Then in June, Pennsylvania State Police Trooper Robert Wareham charged Steven Ray Oller, 47, of Chambersburg, with misdemeanor ethnic intimidation for threatening officers and using a racial slur directed at a Latinx trooper during an arrest for suspected DUI.

And in August, Trooper James Welsh of the state police charged Seneca Anthony Payne, a 39-year-old Bucks County man, with misdemeanor ethnic intimidation. Payne allegedly called an officer a “Gandhi motherfucker” during a welfare check at Payne’s home.

For what it’s worth, state prosecutors seem more lawsuit-averse than these officers. The “ethnic intimidation” charges were dropped in all four cases. But here’s the thing: the same departments charging these people with “ethnic intimidation” are too cowardly to include their misuse of a law in the official paperwork. As The Appeal reports, all of these departments claimed no hate crimes occurred in their jurisdictions despite booking these arrestees for hate crimes.

If a law written in a way that can be construed to cover actions law enforcement normally wouldn’t consider crimes, it will be used to generate additional charges for arrestees. Cops know the laws far better than they claim in court. They like the grey area that allows suspicionless stops and pat downs, but absolute love the minutia that can turn normal reactions to police presence into an arrestable crime.

Filed Under: blue lives matter, free speech, hate speech, insults, pennsylvania, police, robbie sanderson

Hong Kong's Top Cop Wants To Make It Illegal To Insult Police Officers

from the watch-your-mouths,-plebes dept

The Blue Lives Matter movement has traveled overseas. Here in the US, we’ve seen various attempts to criminalize sassing cops, although none of those appear to be working quite as well as those already protected by a raft of extra rights would like. Meanwhile, we had Spain lining itself up for police statesmanship by making it a criminal offense to disrespect police officers.

Over in Hong Kong, the police chief — while still debating whether or not he should offer an apology for his officers’ beating of bystanders during a 2014 pro-democracy protest — has thrown his weight behind criminalization of insults directed at officers.

Hong Kong’s police commissioner said he would support a law to make insulting officers on duty a crime on Tuesday, in what appeared to be a move to placate the city’s police union.

Stephen Lo Wai-chung said an increasing number of disputes in the city was a reason a law was needed – an apparent reversal from his stance a year ago.

“Over the past few years, our officers have been carrying out duties in a society that full of disputes. They caught in the middle in many circumstances. They were insulted in certain extents at work with their jobs sometimes disrupted,” Lo told reporters as he announced last year’s crime statistics, adding that the force had overcome “several big challenges” in recent years.

Disrupting officers is already a criminal offense. It’s the sort of thing that’s illegal everywhere. But disruption of official duties needs to be far more than derogatory remarks. If insults hurled at officers are preventing them from doing their jobs, the police chief doesn’t need new legislation. He needs new officers.

This change in stance can be traced back to Hong Kong’s largest police union. The Junior Police Officers Association, which represents two-thirds of Hong Kong’s police force, thinks officers need to be better protected from certain arrangements of letters.

This legislative push also comes with plenty of hypocrisy. As South China Morning Post editor Luisa Tam points out, officers regularly use “insulting” language and profanity when dealing with citizens.

Police officers are notorious for swearing anyway, so it does look a bit out of character for the police chief to push for a ban and punish the public for swearing at them.

This aligns the Hong Kong police chief with many other law enforcement officials who believe respect is something that can be demanded rather than earned.

Filed Under: blue lives matter, free speech, hong kong, insults, police

More Legislators Jump On The 'Blue Lives Matter' Bandwagon

from the still-plenty-more-'stupid'-in-the-Congressional-storerooms dept

Not wanting to be outdone by idiots in Congress, two idiot senators from the great state of Texas* are pushing their own “Blue Lives Matter” legislation. Senators Cruz and Cornyn have (re)introduced the Backed and Blown “Back the Blue Act,” which adds mandatory minimums to any act of violence against most government officials. Oh, and for extra fun, automatic death penalty considerations for anyone charged under this act.

*Federal law requires the descriptor “great state of” to be appended to any state name, but especially Texas.

I’ll get out of the way and allow Senator Cornyn to toot his own horn:

“Our law enforcement officers put their lives on the line every day to protect and serve families across Texas. Violent criminals who deliberately target those who protect and serve our communities should face swift and tough penalties and the Back the Blue Act sends that clear message. Every day, and particularly during National Police Week, we must give the men and women in blue our unparalleled support,” Sen. Cornyn said.

You hear that, you bunch of ungrateful Americans? No matter how many citizens are gunned down for holding game controllers or toddlers torched by carelessly-tossed flashbang grenades, these fine men and women are to be given “unparalleled support.” They apparently “deserve” it — a term that must be wholly divorced from the process of earning it.

Cruz and Cornyn’s 2016 attempt died from a lack of attention, perhaps overshadowed by the DOJ’s endless stream of scathing reports on police misconduct. With a new “tough on crime” DOJ boss at the helm and the DOJ’s civil rights division neutered, the political climate seems a tad more receptive to glorifying government employees as lowercase-g gods. (But gods nonetheless.)

Several legislators have joined the two senators in stumping for underprotected government employees. Rep. Ted Poe (also of Texas) has plenty to say about the bill at his personal blog. He’s all for it, naturally, but more importantly, he summarizes the harsh new penalties awaiting anyone who threatens, injures, kills, or conspires to do any of the above to a law enforcement officer.

Creates a new federal crime for killing, attempting to kill, or conspiring to kill a federal judge, federal law enforcement officer, or federally funded public safety officer. The offender would be subject to the death penalty and a mandatory minimum sentence of 30 years if death results; the offender would otherwise face a minimum sentence of 10 years.

Creates a new federal crime for assaulting a federally funded law enforcement officer with escalating penalties, including mandatory minimums, based on the extent of any injury and the use of a dangerous weapon. However, no prosecution can be commenced absent certification by the Attorney General that prosecution is appropriate.

Creates a new federal crime for interstate flight from justice to avoid prosecution for killing, attempting to kill, or conspiring to kill a federal judge, federal law enforcement officer, or federally funded public safety officer. The offender would be subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years for this offense.

Take a good look at the middle stipulation. This means pretty much every law enforcement officer in the nation will be covered by this law, instantly subjecting people who do nothing more than assault an officer (aka, resisting arrest, contempt of cop, etc.) to federal punishments. Almost every law enforcement agency in the nation receives some sort of federal funding. This bill would yank prosecutions out of locals’ hands and, presumably, separate defendants from less-harsh local laws.

The bill also allows law enforcement officers (including those whose agencies are the recipients of federal funding) to carry weapons into places citizens can’t. Nothing like adding an extra right to a long list of extra punishments.

This chaser would put two “Blue Lives Matter” bills in play, giving Congress multiple ways to make policing worse. Considering the Go Team Blue attitude on display at the White House, these bills have a home team advantage and a president dying to sign a few more citizens’ rights and liberties away on behalf of law enforcement.

Filed Under: blue lives matter, free speech, hate speech, john cornyn, laws, police, ted cruz

NY Senate Passes Bill That Would Add Cops And Firemen To List Of Protected Classes Under State's Hate Crime Law

from the those-poor-underprivileged-authority-figures dept

Because good ideas are rare but bad ideas eternal, the New York State Senate has just given its blessing to a stupid bill aimed at protecting people armed with guns, power, the weight of the law, and numerous immunity options. The “justification” for New York’s addition of cops and first responders to the state’s hate crime law is this:

There has been an increase in mortality rates of law enforcement officers, firefighters, corrections officers and emergency medical services personnel, within the past decade. In a report by the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund in 2014, statistics showed that approximately “126 federal, state, local, tribal and territorial officers died in the line of duty” which exhibited an increase in comparison to 2012 and 2013. The increase in the death toll has been in part, due to offenses intentionally aimed to harm first responders.

This is followed by a bunch of anecdotes about officers and first responders being on the receiving end of supposedly “targeted” violence. It adds nothing to the “justification” but a few presentation-worthy stories to sway emotions of fellow legislators. It doesn’t make the preceding statement any more correct. It’s actually misleading and wrong in equal parts.

First off, an increase in “mortality rates” is not the same thing as an increase in violence directed at law enforcement officers. The stats legislators are attempting to point to include all deaths in the line of duty, whether they were at the hands of civilians or not. So, this stat is already sort of misleading, albeit only because of the way this bill’s sponsors have phrased it.

Second, the stats the justification quotes are wrong. There were 136 deaths in 2014, according to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund. That’s more than what’s stated here. Worrying? Not even close. It’s 20 more than 2013, but one less than 2012’s total. In other words, the stats show no sort of increase that might justify giving police officers more protection. If these legislators weren’t trying to cherry pick, they might have included 2011’s total of 178, which is fifty more deaths than the supposedly-shocking number quoted in the bill’s justification.

Just so everyone’s aware who’s pushing to make an abusable law even more easily-abused, here’s the bipartisan group of sponsors.

Fred Akshar [R] – Longtime law enforcement officer, having served as undersheriff for Broome County before turning to politics.

Patrick M. Gallivan [R] – former Erie County Sheriff (1998-2005), preceded by 15 years with the New York State Police, and followed by a stint on the state parole board. One of several state legislators found to have faked leadership positions in the Senate to get a little unearned extra pay added onto their paychecks.

Tony Avella [D] – Last seen at Techdirt killing off his horrendous “Right to Be Forgotten” bill… but not in an honorable way. Rather than remove it from consideration, he simply revoked his sponsorship, leaving the orphaned bill to wander the Senate halls unattended.

Martin J. Golden [R] – A retired NYPD officer who has been instrumental in adding even more New Yorkers to the state’s sex offender registry, as well as expanding the state’s DNA databank to include people convicted of nothing more than a misdemeanor.

John J. Bonacic [R] – Former assistant district attorney and one of those guys who thinks something must be done about “anti-law enforcement rhetoric.” Apparently, this bill is part of the solution — a bill that could conceivably be twisted to turn “resisting arrest” into a felony-level hate crime. (Because what is “resisting arrest” if not “targeting” of law enforcement for abuse/violence/etc.?)

Here’s the pertinent wording of the bill, which adds cops, firefighters, and EMTs to a long list of groups who have historically been victims of discrimination.

section 1, states that a person has committed a hate crime, when he or she commits a specified offense and either intentionally selects the person against whom the offense is committed or intended to be committed to, or in part because of a belief or perception regarding race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability, sexual orientation of a person, or because of actual or perceived employment as a law enforcement officer, firefighter, or emergency medical services personnel.

Guess who doesn’t fit into that list: the shorter list of occupations that have long been revered, respected, and given considerable amount of leeway to perform their duties. Unlike those who have been singled out for abuse because of their age, disability, ancestry, race, color, national origin, or sexual orientation, the new protected class is entirely composed of voluntary “traits.”

Adding to the ridiculousness is the bill’s name — a self-righteous, heart-tugging melange of authority-worshipping words: Community Heroes Protection Act.

Very few bills of this sort have become law. Many have attempted to give more protection to well-protected powerful classes, but very few have garnered enough support to make it past the introduction stage. This one has moved forward, which is a problem because bills like this that have passed have immediately been abused by law enforcement.

Filed Under: blue lives matter, firemen, hate crime, new york, police

House Subcommittee Passes Police-Protecting 'Thin Blue Line' Bill

from the more-privilege-for-the-over-privileged! dept

There’s no shortage of existing laws protecting law enforcement officers. So, of course, there’s no shortage of new legislation being introduced to further protect a well-protected subset of government employees. Using a nonexistent “War on Cops” as impetus, legislators all over the nation are submitting bills designed to make harming a cop more of a crime than harming anyone else.

This isn’t just happening at the state level. Last year, Colorado representative Ken Buck introduced a federal “Blue Lives Matter” law, which would have turned attacks on cops into “hate crimes.” The bill is a ridiculous extension of protection to officers who aren’t in any more danger than they were a decade ago, histrionic statements by various federal officials notwithstanding.

Buck’s bill has gone nowhere in the last year. It’s been sitting in a House subcommittee since April of last year. But one bill’s failure doesn’t predict the future performance of similar legislation. As Reason’s C.J. Ciaramella reports, a similar bill — Florida rep Vern Buchanan’s “Thin Blue Line Act” — has cleared the House Judiciary Committee.

The House Judiciary Committee advanced a bill Thursday, the Thin Blue Line Act, by a 19-12 vote that would make the killing of a state or local law enforcement officer during the commission of a federal crime an aggravating factor for juries to consider when weighing a death penalty sentence.

All well and good, I suppose, although the bill is pretty much a carbon copy of Florida rep David Jolly’s 2015 proposal, right down to the bill’s name. Like Rep. Buck’s bill, Jolly’s made it as far as a committee referral before stalling out. Buchanan’s bill, however, now has a greatly increased chance of being pushed towards the President’s desk.

But to what end, asks Ciaramella? The law apparently does nothing more than signal supporters’ cop-supporting virtue.

The legislation would be largely symbolic. Federal death penalty cases are exceedingly rare, and executions at the federal level are even rarer. The last federal execution took place in 2001, when Timothy McVeigh was executed for the Oklahoma City bombing. Most homicide cases are prosecuted by states.

Congressman Bob Goodlatte seems to feel the bill will be most useful when deployed in terrorism cases, but otherwise admits practical applications will be few and far between. The bill has support from police unions but, more importantly, it certainly has the support of the DOJ and the President. This bill caters to Trump’s “law and order” push and does a fair amount of sucking up to Attorney General Sessions himself.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions introduced similar legislation in 2015, when he was a U.S. senator, saying “the alarming spike in violence directed against the men and women entrusted with ensuring the safety and order of our society must be stopped…”

The “alarming spike in violence” Sessions was apparently referring to was the increase of police killed in the line of duty by one over 2014’s total of 122… which itself was below the average for the preceding ten years (~150 per year).

The bill’s being tossed into a pretty receptive Congress. It won’t really need the support of powerful police unions, though — not when the head of the DOJ has previously expressed his legislative desire to give cops even more protection.

Filed Under: blue lives matter, congress, ken buck, speech, thin blue line, vern buchanan

'Blue Lives Matter' Laws Continue To Be Introduced Around The Nation

from the BLM-mostly-DOA,-so-there's-that dept

How much do “Blue Lives” matter? More than non-Blue Lives, apparently, given the national legislative enthusiasm for generating stupid, easily-abused, redundant legislation.

Louisiana — one of the few states where legislators have agreed to extend greater protections to an incredibly-protected group — has already seen its newly-minted “Blue Lives Matter” law abused by law enforcement. It’s been abused so badly that even law enforcement’s best friend — local prosecutors — has refused to pursue charges under the statute.

But most state legislatures have yet to entertain this ridiculous idea to its illogical conclusion. As Julia Craven reports for Huffington Post, fourteen states have floated “Blue Lives Matter” laws — a total of 32 legislative trial balloons.

The good news is most of these have gone nowhere. The data compiled by Craven shows a majority of these have died shortly after introduction — most likely due to them being both (a) bad laws and (b) redundant. All 50 states already have some sort of sentencing enhancement on the books for perpetrators of violent acts against law enforcement officers. Trying to twist legislation meant to protect underprivileged groups to include some of the most privileged members of our society hasn’t found much support beyond police unions and others similarly self-interested.

For whatever reason, Mississippi’s legislature is the nation’s leader in failure and redundancy, as far as “Blue Lives” legislation goes.

Any bills that have managed to pass make things worse for anyone who has the misfortune of interacting with police. Existing laws already engage in book-throwing when it comes to violence against police officers. “Blue Lives” laws just add more severity, for no tangible reason.

[U]nlike hate crime laws, they don’t require prosecutors to prove motive.

“In the vast majority of states, you will get life or considerably less in prison for murder; but if you murder a police officer, you are almost certain to get death,” said Mark Potok, a senior fellow at the Southern Poverty Law Center. “So the truth is that including police in hate crime laws is merely a political statement ? and an unnecessary one at that.”

In most cases, “Blue Lives” laws add sentencing enhancements to normal violations. Crimes like resisting arrest (and assaulting an officer, which tends to be handcuffed to resisting charges) are treated as acts of “hate,” rather than as the basic, bog standard criminal acts they are.

It’s also important to point out — as Craven does in her article — that the “Blue Lives Matter” movement was borne of law enforcement misconduct and use of excessive force. As public confidence in law enforcement decreased, some people felt compelled to intercede on behalf of a pretty much legally-unassailable group.

The national focus on police violence has put officers and their more avid supporters on the defense. Supporters created the Blue Lives Matter campaign as a direct response to the Black Lives Matter movement and the growing protests against police violence.

The other aspect that makes these laws particularly ridiculous is the “hate crime” aspect of it. Hate crime laws deal with human traits that are mostly involuntary or unchangeable, like race or sexual preference. No one is born a cop and no one forces anyone to take the job. Hate crime laws themselves are generally redundant, but adding more layers of redundancy to shelter a certain subsection of Americans who are completely free to remove their “cop” status at any time is a solution in search of a problem. And the problem with problem-less solutions is that problems will be created out of thin air to fit them.

Filed Under: blue lives matter, hate crime, hate speech, police