This is seriously troubling

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com...d-assault-laws

I read your article and then did a little more research. It doesn't sound like there is a difference between assaulting a police officer and assaulting a civilian. Either can be misdemeanors or felonies, depending on the extent of the injury and whether or not a weapon was used. So I guess that means if an officer is trying to arrest you and you punch him, it will probably only be a misdemeanor if he is not really hurt. If you punched him in the face and it only left a small bruise, it would probably only be a misdemeanor. I think that is the reason that Chief Bratton wants to make resisting arrest a felony in certain situations. I think there are probably too many guys punching officers and getting off with a slap on the wrist.

I think if you punch an officer in the face, it probably should be a felony, regardless of whether the officer has any broken bones from the assault.

Anyway, if it was up to me to decide whether to pass this new law, I would need more information. I would need to know why Bratton feels that they need this law (I suspect it is for the reason I just mentioned), and I would would want to know what criteria would be used to determine whether a felony charge would be filed. If the reason given was the reason I stated and if the criteria was that the only people who could be charged with a felony are people who physically assault (punch) a police officer, then I would probably be fine with the new law. If there was no real criteria to decide what would be a felony, then I would be against it. But I would be shocked if the new law wasn't very specific and and didn't require a true assault to be filed as a felony.

If an officer is trying to arrest me and I punch him in the face, don't you think that should be a felony, regardless of whether the officer sustains any real injuries?