Violence against police should be Hate crimes.

[toobfreak]

you simply would like to enlarge the subject for your agenda.

Hey Whitehead, I have something you can enlarge for me right here, dipshit. You're so fucking lost, even your arguments go around in circles.

Probably needs enlargement, but you ain't my type, honey. You probably need a pair hanging below that clitoris.

Ha Ha

 

[White 6]

you simply would like to enlarge the subject for your agenda.

Hey Whitehead, I have something you can enlarge for me right here, dipshit. You're so fucking lost, even your arguments go around in circles.

Probably needs enlargement, but you ain't my type, honey. You probably need a pair hanging below that clitoris.

Ha Ha

Thanks, I'm usually shitty at intentional humor.

 

[2aguy]

I personally think hate crimes are fucking stupid, but liberals love them.

If someone is targeted for violence specifically because they are police, it should be a hate crime.

How could liberals possibly be against this?

Touching a police officer is already a felony....a felony that prosecutors rarely go after...

Can you give me a statute on that touching thing?

Here ...a good breakdown...

Hitting or touching someone in an unwanted, offensive manner -- even threatening or attempting to do so -- is referred to as assault and/or battery and can lead to criminal charges. Some state laws define these terms differently, but assault usually refers to threats of physical force that cause fear in the victim, and battery refers to the offensive physical contact itself. Those convicted of the crime may face fines or even jail time, depending on the severity of the offense. But if you commit assault or battery against a police officer, you're much more likely to serve time behind bars.

As with other crimes, the prosecution must prove certain elements in order to get a conviction for battery against an officer. These elements include the following (state laws may organize and word these elements differently):

1. The accused willfully and unlawfully touched a peace officer in a way that was harmful or offensive;
2. The victim was a peace officer performing their official duties when the accused acted; and
3. The accused knew or reasonably should have known the victim was an on-duty peace officer.

Some jurisdictions require that the officer suffer actual injuries in order to get a conviction for battery against a police officer. But other statutes only require proof of a threat or attempt of battery, or classify varying degrees of the offense. For example, California law imposes more serious charges -- with a possible prison sentence of up to three years -- when "an injury is inflicted" upon the victim. Generally, an injury as minor as a scrape or bruise is sufficient. But the infliction of "serious bodily injury" -- defined by California law to include things like broken bones, loss of consciousness, and serious disfigurement -- will most certainly result in a longer prison sentence upon conviction.
----

Sentencing and Punishment

Charges and sentences for this crime vary quite a bit from one state to the next, but often include incarceration (and probation), in addition to steep fines and restitution to the victim. States without a standalone statute for battery against an officer typically provide for enhanced charges when a peace officer is the victim of assault or battery. For example, a second-degree misdemeanor charge for assault may be upgraded to a first-degree misdemeanor.

Florida law imposes a minimum five-year prison term (and up to 30 years, plus 30 years probation and a $10,000 fine) for anyone convicted of aggravated battery (causing great bodily harm) of a law enforcement officer, classified as a first-degree felony. General battery (not causing great bodily harm) against an officer is charged as a third-degree felony in Florida, punishable by up to five years in prison, five years probation, and a $5,000 fine. The lightest sentence under this statute is six months to one year in county jail for assault against a peace officer, charged as a first-degree misdemeanor.

Be sure to check the laws of your jurisdiction or speak with an attorney if you are unsure.

Battery Against a Police Officer - FindLaw

FindLaw's article on battery against a police officer, which is charged as a more serious crime than battery against a civilian. Get more information on this topic and others by visiting FindLaw's section on Crimes Against Justice.

criminal.findlaw.com

 

[2aguy]

I personally think hate crimes are fucking stupid, but liberals love them.

If someone is targeted for violence specifically because they are police, it should be a hate crime.

How could liberals possibly be against this?

Touching a police officer is already a felony....a felony that prosecutors rarely go after...

Can you give me a statute on that touching thing?

Talked to a family member who is a cop......in Illinois it is considered Battery but it is not a felony for simply touching a cop.......hitting a cop is a felony.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I personally think hate crimes are fucking stupid, but liberals love them.

If someone is targeted for violence specifically because they are police, it should be a hate crime.

How could liberals possibly be against this?

It doesn't fit the category of a hate crime. After all, what is a hate crime? A hate crime is a crime committed against a very likely Democrat voter such as minorities, gays, cross dressers and so on. It's a crime that violates our Constitutional right of Equal Protection under the Law as it assesses harsher penalties for the same crime others commit not categorized as hate.

However you are correct that our laws do not protect police officers nearly enough. Assaulting a police officer should be a felony that carries a minimum of five years in prison on top of other penalties for additional crimes committed.

Are you feeling OK today Ray? That doesn't sound like you. I would have thought you favored death penalty, equally applied for assassinating a Law Enforcement Office. You and I disagree and agree to extents on lots of things, as we have posted back and fourth for months now, but usually you are further to the right than I. Got time to explain my misunderstanding? You always have specific reasoning behind your post, even if we do not agree.

How much further right can I get than that? I've always supported our police strongly. I've always felt that they get the short end of the stick for protecting the public. And what does this have to do with the death penalty anyway?

It should be the penalty for attacking a police officer simply because he is a police officer. Once is too many times and to be able to kill another one within 5 years is not minimal. It is an insult to law enforcement. Damn, I hate sounding like radical rightwing, talking to only hardcore rightwing. You know I am more centrist, to begin with.

On the other side of the coin, when you have a 10 or more times violent cop still doing his violence then you need to treat that like a Hate Crime as well. You can't have it just one way.

Understood and agree. No justification for excess in the line of duty, but police in general should not be targeted for the excess of the few. Most cops and Feds I know are part of the good guys, but maybe I am just lucky to be in control of my associations and contacts. Even if that is the case based on my associations, I still cannot help but believe most are among the good guys in general. Bad cops should be prosecuted, not assassinated. Dang, Daryl, that sounded like a cheap slogan too, didn't it?

I can live with that cheap slogan.

 

[eagle7-31]

I personally think hate crimes are fucking stupid, but liberals love them.

If someone is targeted for violence specifically because they are police, it should be a hate crime.

How could liberals possibly be against this?

Is there a problem with those who are violent towards the police not getting prosecuted?

Hate crimes were brought about to give the federal government a venue to prosecute people that local authorities would not. If you can show this to be a problem here, you may be able to make a good argument for it.

You believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I want to sell you.

 

[White 6]

I personally think hate crimes are fucking stupid, but liberals love them.

If someone is targeted for violence specifically because they are police, it should be a hate crime.

How could liberals possibly be against this?

Touching a police officer is already a felony....a felony that prosecutors rarely go after...

Can you give me a statute on that touching thing?

Here ...a good breakdown...

Hitting or touching someone in an unwanted, offensive manner -- even threatening or attempting to do so -- is referred to as assault and/or battery and can lead to criminal charges. Some state laws define these terms differently, but assault usually refers to threats of physical force that cause fear in the victim, and battery refers to the offensive physical contact itself. Those convicted of the crime may face fines or even jail time, depending on the severity of the offense. But if you commit assault or battery against a police officer, you're much more likely to serve time behind bars.

As with other crimes, the prosecution must prove certain elements in order to get a conviction for battery against an officer. These elements include the following (state laws may organize and word these elements differently):

1. The accused willfully and unlawfully touched a peace officer in a way that was harmful or offensive;
2. The victim was a peace officer performing their official duties when the accused acted; and
3. The accused knew or reasonably should have known the victim was an on-duty peace officer.

Some jurisdictions require that the officer suffer actual injuries in order to get a conviction for battery against a police officer. But other statutes only require proof of a threat or attempt of battery, or classify varying degrees of the offense. For example, California law imposes more serious charges -- with a possible prison sentence of up to three years -- when "an injury is inflicted" upon the victim. Generally, an injury as minor as a scrape or bruise is sufficient. But the infliction of "serious bodily injury" -- defined by California law to include things like broken bones, loss of consciousness, and serious disfigurement -- will most certainly result in a longer prison sentence upon conviction.
----

Sentencing and Punishment

Charges and sentences for this crime vary quite a bit from one state to the next, but often include incarceration (and probation), in addition to steep fines and restitution to the victim. States without a standalone statute for battery against an officer typically provide for enhanced charges when a peace officer is the victim of assault or battery. For example, a second-degree misdemeanor charge for assault may be upgraded to a first-degree misdemeanor.

Florida law imposes a minimum five-year prison term (and up to 30 years, plus 30 years probation and a $10,000 fine) for anyone convicted of aggravated battery (causing great bodily harm) of a law enforcement officer, classified as a first-degree felony. General battery (not causing great bodily harm) against an officer is charged as a third-degree felony in Florida, punishable by up to five years in prison, five years probation, and a $5,000 fine. The lightest sentence under this statute is six months to one year in county jail for assault against a peace officer, charged as a first-degree misdemeanor.

Be sure to check the laws of your jurisdiction or speak with an attorney if you are unsure.

Battery Against a Police Officer - FindLaw

FindLaw's article on battery against a police officer, which is charged as a more serious crime than battery against a civilian. Get more information on this topic and others by visiting FindLaw's section on Crimes Against Justice.

criminal.findlaw.com

Thought it a little more than touching. Assume you are a Floridian, how often is it used? I figure, not enough.