CREDIT: eddtoro/Shutterstock
New York has become the latest state to introduce a Blue Lives Matter bill, which would classify assaulting an officer as a hate crime. The bill was introduced today by New York Assemblyman Ron Castorina (R), with support from Council Member Joseph C. Borelli (R) and NYPD Sergeant Joe Imperatrice, the president and founder of Blue Lives Matter NYC.
Hate crime legislation currently only applies to attacks based on race, sexual orientation, national origin, and religious affiliation. But this new legislation would classify cops as a protected class, aligning them with ethnic and religious minorities and the LGBT community.
In an interview with the New York Observer, Castorina noted the recent attacks on cops in Baton Rouge and Dallas this past month as a driving force for the bill. He also blamed Black Lives Matter protests for provoking violence against law enforcement.
“It’s based on this climate in this country right now where police officers are being abused and they’re being disrespected, and we’re seeing they have a target on their back, in Louisiana and in Dallas,” Castorina said. “You can envision this happening at a protest, where somebody might throw a rock or a bottle or a punch.”
Talk about a bad, knee-jerk reaction. This is completely unnecessary, as punishments for assaulting a cop are much higher than assaulting a non-cop, and everyone knows that cops will already do whatever they need to in order to tack on a resisting arrest charge, so now they’ll be busy finding ways to tack on an assault charge, too. Oh, this won’t lead anywhere bad, no, of course not. :Insert spine popping eyeroll here: Honesty would be welcome. Why not just call this what it is, a brutal enforcement of bowing down to authority? Being a cop is nowhere near as dangerous as a number of other jobs, and the majority of cops are killed in traffic accidents. The stats are quite clear as to there being many more civilians shot and killed by cops, then cops being shot by civilians.
Civilians get killed by police far more often. Law enforcement officers shot and killed some 990 people in 2015 and another 491 in the first half of this year, according to the Washington Post’s award-winning tracking of police shootings.
That’s almost 1,500 police killings in 18 months, compared to 305 law enforcement officers attacked and killed in the line of duty in the six-year span of numbers in the new report. Police officers have shot and killed about 82 people each month nationwide since the start of last year, and have been killed by attackers roughly 4 times per month going back to the start of 2010.
So of course, cops must be made into a protected class, oh my yes! As these bills pass, and they will, we can all look forward to many more people dying unjustly at the hands of cops, and those who don’t die may well end up with extended prison sentences because of cops who will claim assault. Just what our already over-burdened, fucked up penal system needs. Fuck stormtroopers.
Via ThinkProgress.
What they really mean is: “Blue Lives Matter More”
Fuck’m. Being a totalitarian is a lifestyle choice. They want to get all the cookies for “going in harm’s way” they ought to welcome the opportunity to get more cookies for being in more danger.
This is absolutely infuriating. I can’t believe anyone thinks this shit is going to help in any way.
The SWAT cops in the pic don’t look like they are wearing any blue at all.
Perhaps they should be required to paint themselves blue, if they wish to be a protected class.
The USoA is beyond .
I need to photoshop an image of the Blueman group doing a facepalm…..
Maybe they should think about ways to *earn* respect, rather than just expect it to be given.
Remember: legally, “assault” includes almost anything that makes a person feel threatened, without requiring any physical contact.
An actual touch, however light, makes it “assault and battery”.
It’s tough to get mad about a law that’s so inconsequential. As has been pointed out, assaulting a police officer is already punished more than assaulting a civilian. There’s no need to tack on another charge, so the law itself won’t make much difference. It won’t even increase the number of people arrested for assaulting a police officer (if they want to railroad you, they can already do that). But, it did let a bunch of politicians make a big “we support the police” statement. So, we’ll always have that. Plus, it’s cheaper than paying/training/screening them better.
It’s not like the “Blue Lives Matter” crowd had many other choices. The police don’t have any other complaints about how the justice system deals with people who attack the police other than “it’s not a bias crime”. If somebody assaults a cop, arrests are quickly made, charges are filed, and judges and juries have very little sympathy for people who assault police officers. So, the only thing left is for them to do is tack some other charge onto somebody who will probably never see the outside of a prison again anyway.
Personally, I’m not a big supporter of “protected classes”. If a person is assaulted because of who they are, then it’s a bias crime and subject to the same enhanced penalties as any other bias crime. It doesn’t matter if it’s because of race, sexual orientation/identity, religion, profession, professional sports team alliance, hat color, etc. So, if a cop is beat up by somebody who hates cops enough to beat one up over it, then it’s a bias crime. Of course, since the original charge is “assaulting a police officer” than the penalties will still be greater than if you beat up anybody else. Once again, nothing changes.
Corrupt cops (a redundancy if there ever were one) try to compare themselves to soldiers, but it’s a false comparison. Soldiers knowingly take orders that will lead to their deaths. Attempts at “retribution” by individual soldiers for the death of another is an unjustified war crime and may be punished if witnesses come forward.
Cops, on the other hand, cower at the thought of a single one of themselves dying, and are utterly unwilling to endanger themselves to protect others. But crimes and abuse are standard practice and go unpunished. To cover up such crimes, they intimidate witnesses, destroy evidence and most definitely carry out violent acts of retribution, all with the protection of a corrupt “legal” system.
“Blue lives” don’t matter. If they had any spine, they would be willing to die to protect the populace.
jimb @7:
This. So much this.
drken #9
There are a few things in your post that make my head spin.
First of all you say,
When the article itself talks about moving up an assault charge from Felony C to Fenony B, and aggravated assault from B to A. Further, it states,
So, if “longer, harsher” sentences are “inconsequential” to you, you don’t know what the words “longer”, “harsher”, “sentence” or “inconsequential” mean.
--
Secondly, this,
Is gross. Just… gross.
It’s hard to imagine you could possibly be a member of one of these “protected classes”, because comparing the hate, prejudice, violence, bigotry, oppression and danger a black trans woman might face to what fucking sports team one may choose to follow, or what color fucking hat someone might wear is blisteringly ridiculous and unaware.
drken:
There’s the ignorant, willfully stupid voice of white privilege. It sure as fuck matters to this mixed race, queer person. As you seem to be fond of pontificating out of your ass, you can do that shit somewhere else. I have a zero tolerance policy in regard to assholes, and you aren’t just an asshole, you’re a flaming doucheweasel of a fucking asshole.
@12 & @13
I didn’t see how they punish bias crimes in NY, so I was wrong about that. I apologize. To be fair, that article also says the bill has no chance of becoming law, so it’s still grandstanding. It’s also so Republicans can run “my opponent doesn’t support the police” ads in a year or so after it gets voted down. Also, the “will make BLM illegal” is pure conjecture with no real evidence to back it up.
I don’t see how it protects anybody any less to use a generic definition of “Bias” than to have a list that people may or may not belong to. Contrary to your assumptions, I am a member of a “protected class”. European Jews may enjoy white privilege, but we are still more likely to have a bias crime committed against us than most other groups. I have no issue allowing bias crime protection to others that are obviously not as in danger of being a victim of a bias crime as I am. How many Yankee fans get beat up over it? Not a lot, I imagine. Especially compared to those from truly marginalized communities. But, if somebody sees somebody else wearing Yankee merchandise and assaults them over it, then it’s a bias crime. Besides, nothing changes for you if somebody you don’t think deserves protection (or greater retribution) gets it.
Most importantly, having a generic description of bias eliminates any debate over wether or not somebody deserves protection or not, such as we have here. They do, case closed. I don’t want to have legislators arguing over whether or not we care (any more than we would otherwise) if particular groups get beat up. Also, who gets to control who goes on the list? What if (as we have here) people we don’t agree with try to use that list to their own ends? All you should need to prove bias is intent, not whether or not we’ve bothered to put that group on the list yet.
drken, you seem to be on the dim side, too. I gave you one warning, I suggest you take it. Re-iterating your first asshole screed is not going to fucking help you. Go away, and do not return to this thread.
By your definition, drken, just about all crimes would be bias crimes, because all crimes are committed due to something that the victim possesses that the perpetrator does not or just does not like at that particular moment (I mean, burglary would be a bias crime against people who own stuff in a house! A drunk person commits a bias crime against a fellow bar patron because xe simply does not like the other’s face at that moment, or fellow patron told them they can’t drive home while inebriated!).
The debate isn’t about whether or not somebody deserves protection. Because you’re right, everyone does. The debate is whether certain crimes, due to their nature, should have more severe penalties. It’s not about having more protected classes of people, but trying to provide a more equal level of protection for groups of people who have historically been less protected.
And from what I know, cops have pretty much always enjoyed a very high level of prestige and privilege. There has never been a mass deportation of stormtroopers, or a mass genocide of police officers, or segregation of cops into ghettos or poorer neighbourhoods, no gentrification of police headquarters by forcing all the stormtroopers out only to have firefighters move into the renovated buildings, etc.
Anyway, I doubt all of the above is half as rational as it should be, because I’m hungover and jetlagged, so I would like to finish on a totally classy note. This:
… is the stupidest fucking I have read this morning. As if hating someone’s fucking hat is like homophobia.
Your white privilege is showing, and it’s revealing all your other privileges, too. You’re an entitled shit, and you suck.
rq @ 16:
I love it when you get all classy and stuff.
Caine
:P It’s the hangover and the jetlag, they really add to my upper crust.