8 ms·

NY State Assembly Bill A416

28 points by rglover 6y ago

Roeters 6y ago
It seems to me that we have reached that point in our lives where we have to actually use firearms to protect ourselves not only from criminals but from our own government
Roeters 6y ago
It seems to me that we've reached that point in our lives where we have to use firearms to not only protect ourselves from criminals but also from our own government
drmom4 6y ago
Being accused of maybe having a virus is not a reason to be arrested and detained indefinitely.Period!
drmom4 6y ago
A vaccine is NOT medical treatment. The trials to prove this will take at least 5 years.
cheschire 6y ago
So they want to detain people in medical facilities who may be contagious rather than putting them in standard facilities. Reading this while squinting, I could imagine this being manipulated by bad actors. On the surface though it seems benign?
- rglover 6y ago
  There's a lot of slippery wording and room for malfeasance, specifically relating to how a person's behavior will influence the terms of their detainment. Section 3, Article 9: > A PERSON WHO IS DETAINED IN A MEDICAL FACILITY, OR OTHER APPROPRIATE FACILITY OR PREMISES, SHALL NOT CONDUCT HIMSELF OR HERSELF IN A DISORDERLY MANNER, AND SHALL NOT LEAVE OR ATTEMPT TO LEAVE SUCH FACILITY OR PREMISES UNTIL HE OR SHE IS DISCHARGED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION. That should terrify people. It's basically saying "we can detain you if we think you have a virus and you're not allowed to fight us or try to escape." --- There's also lack of clarity on where you will be kept if arrested: Section 1, Article 2: > SUCH PERSON OR GROUP OF PERSONS SHALL BE DETAINED IN A MEDICAL FACILITY OR OTHER APPROPRIATE FACILITY OR PREMISES DESIGNATED BY THE GOVERNOR OR HIS OR HER DELEGEE AND COMPLYING WITH SUBDIVISION FIVE OF THIS SECTION. --- Section 4, Article 12 is basically describing indefinite detainment and forced vaccination/medication.
  - geofft 6y ago
    This is no different from being arrested, is it? You can be arrested for probable cause, i.e. if the police think you committed a crime, even if you committed no crime. You can have your day in court later if you're innocent, but you certainly can't fight or try to escape. Unless you think it's also bad that the police can detain people who haven't committed a crime / should allow people being arrested to fight back and escape?
    - rglover 6y ago
      That's the exact problem. That makes this worse, not better. It means no personal autonomy over your health and sets the precedent for far worse things. That's always the point with stuff like this, the precedent, not the surface-level idea.
      - Spooky23 6y ago
        So what’s the personal consequence for your irresponsible exercise of autonomy? Perhaps the state should sue and seize your property to pay for the healthcare needs of folks infected by you.
        rglover 6y ago
        If I get sick and die, I get sick and die. People who are concerned about getting sick or dying, then, should take more caution (staying home, wearing PPE, etc). That standard has always existed. Up until 2020, there was always the chance that you would catch some virus, bacterial infection, etc. The rebuttal that's always applied to this is that "so you don't care about people, then?" which is not the point. Personally, I can and should be legally able to take whatever precautions I think are necessary without any interference or looming punishment from the government. I'd much rather this sort of thing be policed socially amongst individuals as opposed to giving carte blanche to government to lock people up.
        Spooky23 6y ago
- kenny87 6y ago
  To put some context on this, the underlying social problem is the overcriminalization of behavior and the alarming growth [1] in incarceration rates here in the U.S. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#/media/File:US_incarceration_timeline-clean.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#/me...
- dahfizz 6y ago
  This would give unelected officials the power to detain people "suspected" of having a disease. I would much rather live in a world where the government does not have that power. All the government has to do is declare a medical emergency (which they can do arbitrarily) and they can entirely subvert the justice system. This is the kind of thing conspiracy theorists have been laughed at for fearing, and now people like you openly support these authoritarian policies.
hprotagonist 6y ago
the police power of the state regarding public health is really quite broad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts
geofft 6y ago
This is exactly what I want my government doing. The legitimate purpose of government, even in the minarchist view, is to protect citizens from threats to life, liberty, and property. If a thousand Redcoats showed up in New York and wanted to attack me or my home, the state should do all in its power to stop them. If the soldiers were being pressed into service and have no personal desire to attack, but they still attack, it makes no difference. It's no different if someone has a communicable disease and has no personal desire to communicate it.
- sokoloff 6y ago
  If it were limited to “clear and convincing cases” of being an attacker, I agree with limited reluctance. This bill includes “or suspected” which is inherently different and problematic in my view.
  - mytailorisrich 6y ago
    If this does not include suspected cases then it becomes useless because in many cases they obviously probably don't have an actual test result for the person but only a suspicion based on, e.g., symptoms. Of course the important aspect here is to carry out a test as quickly as possible in order not to detain a suspected case for longer than necessary.
    - sokoloff 6y ago
      I agree with you on both points. One might reasonably wonder why the second point is not reflected in the bill explicitly. It’s not like we had to break our brains for more than 2 minutes in this.
    - rglover 6y ago
      The problem with that is the quality of the test being used. Combined with legislation like the above, it has the potential to give you a free pass to "mark" someone, whether or not that's medically accurate. https://www.who.int/news/item/14-12-2020-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users https://www.who.int/news/item/14-12-2020-who-information-not...
LatteLazy 6y ago
This has been standard all the way back to Typhoid Mary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon
- rglover 6y ago
  COVID-19 is not Typhoid fever and correct me if I'm wrong but I don't recall any legislation around that case.
  - LatteLazy 6y ago
    I'm a little confused by your comment. The link above is to legislation that hasn't passed yet. It cross links to similar legislation from previous sessions. The first section amends existing (passed) legislation. So there seems to be plenty of legislation. Also, I don't think anyone said Covid is Typhoid. You are correct that it isn't. But they're both contagious and potentially deadly. We don't normally legislate on a per-pathogen basis if that's what you're asking?
    - rglover 6y ago
      > We don't normally legislate on a per-pathogen basis if that's what you're asking? Correct. I mentioned in another reply that my concern is about the precedent being set.
      - LatteLazy 6y ago
        I think the limits in the legislation are quite tight. Tighter than existing powers around mental health detentions. So I don't think there is really much room for abuse created with these powers. I agree it's a not ideal to legislate like this during an emergency. But as the legislative haven't done their homework there don't seem to be many other options. The law itself doesn't mention COVID-19 so it is general purpose at least.
        crx07 6y ago
nbjgfgbbb 6y ago
I'm absolutely appaled at the level of support this is getting in the comments here. Since when were hackers full on authoritarian fascist? You all should be ashamed.
cj 6y ago
Here's my interpretation of the bill after reading it over a couple times. IANAL. - NY state will have the ability to order the detainment of individuals (EDIT: or groups / classes of individuals) if it's decided they pose an "imminent + significant threat to public health resulting in severe morbidity or high mortality". - Individuals are detained in a medical facility or a facility/premises designed by the governor - If ordered to be detained for more than 3 business days, and the detainee requests to be released, the state will submit an expedited court order to continue detainment. The court order must be granted within 5 business days after the detainee's request, otherwise they are released. If detained less than 3 business days, they are "afforded an opportunity to be heard" (not sure what that actually means) - Individuals with a confirmed case can no longer be detained if they are not contagious. If there's no confirmed case, they can't be detained if they will not become contagious in the future or if the state determines they will not pose a risk to public health - Expanded power of the state to create and enforce new orders, such as (but not limited to) requiring testing / medical evaluation of individuals who are thought to be exposed / infected. Also allows them to force preventative measures such as a vaccine, but with the caveat there must be a court order if administration must be done forcibly. - The above powers only apply during a declared "State of Health Emergency" due to an epidemic
- throwawaysea 6y ago
  One correction - the bill doesn’t just apply to individuals. It explicitly noted that it can apply to groups that can be described with a “reasonably specific” description. In other words, it can apply to classes of individuals.
- chiph 6y ago
  > or a facility/premises designed by the governor Interpreting this in the worst light -- this could be a jail or prison if the governor has designated such to be where people charged with violating this law are to be confined. But it does go on to mention home confinement - not sure what the standard is. What I'm not seeing is mention of compensation to people wrongly forcibly quarantined under this law. Or any reference to how they will be treated while quarantined (Will you be fed a Maricopa county jail peanut-butter sandwich, a military ration, or take-out from local restaurants?) From a language perspective - I really dislike the word "Removal" used in the bill. Perhaps it's standard for NY laws, but it's too Orwellian in my opinion. And quarantine isn't mentioned until the last page. Really, it's just sloppily written, perhaps intentionally so - so that the legislator can prove to his constituents that he's doing something while on their dime.
throwawaysea 6y ago
This bill is so vague and overreaching that it can be used to do just about anything. The wording below enables the state government to detain (or confine in some other way) anyone who refuses to get vaccinated for example, since they could be considered as a group that is “suspected” (whatever that means) to be carrying a disease: > ... MAY ORDER THE REMOVAL AND/OR DETENTION OF SUCH A PERSON OR OF A GROUP OF SUCH PERSONS BY ISSUING A SINGLE ORDER, IDENTIFYING SUCH PERSONS EITHER BY NAME OR BY A REASONABLY SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF THE INDIVIDUALS OR GROUP BEING DETAINED. SUCH PERSON OR GROUP OF PERSONS SHALL BE DETAINED IN A MEDICAL FACILITY OR OTHER APPROPRIATE FACILITY OR PREMISES DESIGNATED BY THE GOVERNOR ... Section 12 of the bill gets more explicit and notes that apart from detention, you may be ordered to undergo medical procedures like vaccination: > ... THE GOVERNOR OR HIS OR HER DELEGEE MAY, IN HIS OR HER DISCRETION, ISSUE AND SEEK ENFORCEMENT OF ANY OTHER ORDERS THAT HE OR SHE DETERMINES ARE NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE TO PREVENT DISSEMINATION OR TRANSMISSION OF CONTAGIOUS DISEASES OR OTHER ILLNESSES THAT MAY POSE A THREAT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH INCLUDING ... TO REQUIRE AN INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS BEEN EXPOSED TO OR INFECTED BY A CONTAGIOUS DISEASE TO COMPLETE AN APPROPRIATE, PRESCRIBED COURSE OF TREATMENT, PREVENTIVE MEDICATION OR VACCINATION ... Bodily autonomy matters. It is a fundamental right and must be upheld across the board. Safety is the responsibility of the individual. If you’re someone who is scared of viruses and disease, the correct path is for YOU to quarantine yourself indefinitely. It is not appropriate to require others to make changes to their body to suit your risk aversion.
eplanit 6y ago
Blue states/leaders have revealed themselves in the past 12 months as true authoritarians.
- u801e 6y ago
  Both major parties are authoritarian in nature. On some issues, they agree. On the issues they disagree on, they're still authoritarian (e.g., abortion restrictions favored by Republicans, gun restrictions favored by Democrats).
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  If you think this is bad, you're going to be so upset when you hear about: * the Patriot Act * the War-on-Drugs * Mass incarceration * lack of abortion rights * lack of LGBT rights * police shooting of minorities * The electoral collage system * President Trumps refusal to conceded * a LOT of American history.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
u801e 6y ago
How does this law compare to the law that allows individuals to be committed to a psychiatric facility upon determination that they pose a danger to themselves or others?

28 points by rglover 6y ago

It seems to me that we have reached that point in our lives where we have to actually use firearms to protect ourselves not only from criminals but from our own government

Roeters 6y ago

It seems to me that we've reached that point in our lives where we have to use firearms to not only protect ourselves from criminals but also from our own government

drmom4 6y ago

Being accused of maybe having a virus is not a reason to be arrested and detained indefinitely.Period!

drmom4 6y ago

A vaccine is NOT medical treatment. The trials to prove this will take at least 5 years.

cheschire 6y ago

So they want to detain people in medical facilities who may be contagious rather than putting them in standard facilities. Reading this while squinting, I could imagine this being manipulated by bad actors. On the surface though it seems benign?

rglover 6y ago
There's a lot of slippery wording and room for malfeasance, specifically relating to how a person's behavior will influence the terms of their detainment. Section 3, Article 9: > A PERSON WHO IS DETAINED IN A MEDICAL FACILITY, OR OTHER APPROPRIATE FACILITY OR PREMISES, SHALL NOT CONDUCT HIMSELF OR HERSELF IN A DISORDERLY MANNER, AND SHALL NOT LEAVE OR ATTEMPT TO LEAVE SUCH FACILITY OR PREMISES UNTIL HE OR SHE IS DISCHARGED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION. That should terrify people. It's basically saying "we can detain you if we think you have a virus and you're not allowed to fight us or try to escape." --- There's also lack of clarity on where you will be kept if arrested: Section 1, Article 2: > SUCH PERSON OR GROUP OF PERSONS SHALL BE DETAINED IN A MEDICAL FACILITY OR OTHER APPROPRIATE FACILITY OR PREMISES DESIGNATED BY THE GOVERNOR OR HIS OR HER DELEGEE AND COMPLYING WITH SUBDIVISION FIVE OF THIS SECTION. --- Section 4, Article 12 is basically describing indefinite detainment and forced vaccination/medication.
- geofft 6y ago
  This is no different from being arrested, is it? You can be arrested for probable cause, i.e. if the police think you committed a crime, even if you committed no crime. You can have your day in court later if you're innocent, but you certainly can't fight or try to escape. Unless you think it's also bad that the police can detain people who haven't committed a crime / should allow people being arrested to fight back and escape?
  - rglover 6y ago
    That's the exact problem. That makes this worse, not better. It means no personal autonomy over your health and sets the precedent for far worse things. That's always the point with stuff like this, the precedent, not the surface-level idea.
    - Spooky23 6y ago
      So what’s the personal consequence for your irresponsible exercise of autonomy? Perhaps the state should sue and seize your property to pay for the healthcare needs of folks infected by you.
      - rglover 6y ago
        If I get sick and die, I get sick and die. People who are concerned about getting sick or dying, then, should take more caution (staying home, wearing PPE, etc). That standard has always existed. Up until 2020, there was always the chance that you would catch some virus, bacterial infection, etc. The rebuttal that's always applied to this is that "so you don't care about people, then?" which is not the point. Personally, I can and should be legally able to take whatever precautions I think are necessary without any interference or looming punishment from the government. I'd much rather this sort of thing be policed socially amongst individuals as opposed to giving carte blanche to government to lock people up.
        Spooky23 6y ago
kenny87 6y ago
To put some context on this, the underlying social problem is the overcriminalization of behavior and the alarming growth [1] in incarceration rates here in the U.S. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#/media/File:US_incarceration_timeline-clean.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#/me...
dahfizz 6y ago
This would give unelected officials the power to detain people "suspected" of having a disease. I would much rather live in a world where the government does not have that power. All the government has to do is declare a medical emergency (which they can do arbitrarily) and they can entirely subvert the justice system. This is the kind of thing conspiracy theorists have been laughed at for fearing, and now people like you openly support these authoritarian policies.

hprotagonist 6y ago

the police power of the state regarding public health is really quite broad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts

geofft 6y ago

This is exactly what I want my government doing. The legitimate purpose of government, even in the minarchist view, is to protect citizens from threats to life, liberty, and property. If a thousand Redcoats showed up in New York and wanted to attack me or my home, the state should do all in its power to stop them. If the soldiers were being pressed into service and have no personal desire to attack, but they still attack, it makes no difference. It's no different if someone has a communicable disease and has no personal desire to communicate it.

sokoloff 6y ago
If it were limited to “clear and convincing cases” of being an attacker, I agree with limited reluctance. This bill includes “or suspected” which is inherently different and problematic in my view.
- mytailorisrich 6y ago
  If this does not include suspected cases then it becomes useless because in many cases they obviously probably don't have an actual test result for the person but only a suspicion based on, e.g., symptoms. Of course the important aspect here is to carry out a test as quickly as possible in order not to detain a suspected case for longer than necessary.
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    I agree with you on both points. One might reasonably wonder why the second point is not reflected in the bill explicitly. It’s not like we had to break our brains for more than 2 minutes in this.
  - rglover 6y ago
    The problem with that is the quality of the test being used. Combined with legislation like the above, it has the potential to give you a free pass to "mark" someone, whether or not that's medically accurate. https://www.who.int/news/item/14-12-2020-who-information-notice-for-ivd-users https://www.who.int/news/item/14-12-2020-who-information-not...

LatteLazy 6y ago

This has been standard all the way back to Typhoid Mary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Mallon

rglover 6y ago
COVID-19 is not Typhoid fever and correct me if I'm wrong but I don't recall any legislation around that case.
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  I'm a little confused by your comment. The link above is to legislation that hasn't passed yet. It cross links to similar legislation from previous sessions. The first section amends existing (passed) legislation. So there seems to be plenty of legislation. Also, I don't think anyone said Covid is Typhoid. You are correct that it isn't. But they're both contagious and potentially deadly. We don't normally legislate on a per-pathogen basis if that's what you're asking?
  - rglover 6y ago
    > We don't normally legislate on a per-pathogen basis if that's what you're asking? Correct. I mentioned in another reply that my concern is about the precedent being set.
    - LatteLazy 6y ago
      I think the limits in the legislation are quite tight. Tighter than existing powers around mental health detentions. So I don't think there is really much room for abuse created with these powers. I agree it's a not ideal to legislate like this during an emergency. But as the legislative haven't done their homework there don't seem to be many other options. The law itself doesn't mention COVID-19 so it is general purpose at least.
      - crx07 6y ago

nbjgfgbbb 6y ago

I'm absolutely appaled at the level of support this is getting in the comments here. Since when were hackers full on authoritarian fascist? You all should be ashamed.

cj 6y ago

Here's my interpretation of the bill after reading it over a couple times. IANAL. - NY state will have the ability to order the detainment of individuals (EDIT: or groups / classes of individuals) if it's decided they pose an "imminent + significant threat to public health resulting in severe morbidity or high mortality". - Individuals are detained in a medical facility or a facility/premises designed by the governor - If ordered to be detained for more than 3 business days, and the detainee requests to be released, the state will submit an expedited court order to continue detainment. The court order must be granted within 5 business days after the detainee's request, otherwise they are released. If detained less than 3 business days, they are "afforded an opportunity to be heard" (not sure what that actually means) - Individuals with a confirmed case can no longer be detained if they are not contagious. If there's no confirmed case, they can't be detained if they will not become contagious in the future or if the state determines they will not pose a risk to public health - Expanded power of the state to create and enforce new orders, such as (but not limited to) requiring testing / medical evaluation of individuals who are thought to be exposed / infected. Also allows them to force preventative measures such as a vaccine, but with the caveat there must be a court order if administration must be done forcibly. - The above powers only apply during a declared "State of Health Emergency" due to an epidemic

throwawaysea 6y ago
One correction - the bill doesn’t just apply to individuals. It explicitly noted that it can apply to groups that can be described with a “reasonably specific” description. In other words, it can apply to classes of individuals.
chiph 6y ago
> or a facility/premises designed by the governor Interpreting this in the worst light -- this could be a jail or prison if the governor has designated such to be where people charged with violating this law are to be confined. But it does go on to mention home confinement - not sure what the standard is. What I'm not seeing is mention of compensation to people wrongly forcibly quarantined under this law. Or any reference to how they will be treated while quarantined (Will you be fed a Maricopa county jail peanut-butter sandwich, a military ration, or take-out from local restaurants?) From a language perspective - I really dislike the word "Removal" used in the bill. Perhaps it's standard for NY laws, but it's too Orwellian in my opinion. And quarantine isn't mentioned until the last page. Really, it's just sloppily written, perhaps intentionally so - so that the legislator can prove to his constituents that he's doing something while on their dime.

throwawaysea 6y ago

This bill is so vague and overreaching that it can be used to do just about anything. The wording below enables the state government to detain (or confine in some other way) anyone who refuses to get vaccinated for example, since they could be considered as a group that is “suspected” (whatever that means) to be carrying a disease: > ... MAY ORDER THE REMOVAL AND/OR DETENTION OF SUCH A PERSON OR OF A GROUP OF SUCH PERSONS BY ISSUING A SINGLE ORDER, IDENTIFYING SUCH PERSONS EITHER BY NAME OR BY A REASONABLY SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF THE INDIVIDUALS OR GROUP BEING DETAINED. SUCH PERSON OR GROUP OF PERSONS SHALL BE DETAINED IN A MEDICAL FACILITY OR OTHER APPROPRIATE FACILITY OR PREMISES DESIGNATED BY THE GOVERNOR ... Section 12 of the bill gets more explicit and notes that apart from detention, you may be ordered to undergo medical procedures like vaccination: > ... THE GOVERNOR OR HIS OR HER DELEGEE MAY, IN HIS OR HER DISCRETION, ISSUE AND SEEK ENFORCEMENT OF ANY OTHER ORDERS THAT HE OR SHE DETERMINES ARE NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE TO PREVENT DISSEMINATION OR TRANSMISSION OF CONTAGIOUS DISEASES OR OTHER ILLNESSES THAT MAY POSE A THREAT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH INCLUDING ... TO REQUIRE AN INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS BEEN EXPOSED TO OR INFECTED BY A CONTAGIOUS DISEASE TO COMPLETE AN APPROPRIATE, PRESCRIBED COURSE OF TREATMENT, PREVENTIVE MEDICATION OR VACCINATION ... Bodily autonomy matters. It is a fundamental right and must be upheld across the board. Safety is the responsibility of the individual. If you’re someone who is scared of viruses and disease, the correct path is for YOU to quarantine yourself indefinitely. It is not appropriate to require others to make changes to their body to suit your risk aversion.

eplanit 6y ago

Blue states/leaders have revealed themselves in the past 12 months as true authoritarians.

u801e 6y ago
Both major parties are authoritarian in nature. On some issues, they agree. On the issues they disagree on, they're still authoritarian (e.g., abortion restrictions favored by Republicans, gun restrictions favored by Democrats).
LatteLazy 6y ago
If you think this is bad, you're going to be so upset when you hear about: * the Patriot Act * the War-on-Drugs * Mass incarceration * lack of abortion rights * lack of LGBT rights * police shooting of minorities * The electoral collage system * President Trumps refusal to conceded * a LOT of American history.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

u801e 6y ago

How does this law compare to the law that allows individuals to be committed to a psychiatric facility upon determination that they pose a danger to themselves or others?