I have no problem with the change of the law other than with respect to the disparate treatment of classification of people. If there there is a no-bodily injury assault on a first responder, I'm fine with a court electing to treat it as a non minimum jail time misdemeanor. I'm fine with court, trier of fact, discretion. I just think that the same discretion should apply to everyone. Also, recognize that the statute is changed with respect to EMTs, Firefighters, judges and other non-police. So the resisting arrest issue does not apply to those people. In terms of police, I'm thinking more about the current riots where police are regularly assaulted for simply being police.

The statute itself creates the classifications for people. If the law creates the classifications it creates the potential that one or another classification may be treated unequally. Here there is no specific language that refers to the specific intent of harming first responders for the sole fact that they are first responders. However, the statue states that the classification is limited to acts committed against first responders while engaging in their professional duties. In other words, but for the person was acting as a judge the defendant would not have assaulted her. That is pretty darn close to intent to harm because of who you are. In the gender classification, if you are out at a bar and some woman is rude to you and you get in her face and call her a f'ing B, has that now become a hate crime?

Seems to me like an unnecessary slippery slope. Moreover, by changing the statute, the state is going to further demoralize the police and increase the possibility that folks that do not read the statute as closely as you and I all of sudden believe that it is ok to assault the police or EMTs and there will little in the way of consequence. And when I say "assault", I'm not referring to the technical legal sense, I'm referring to how most people think of the word.

Gotta get back to work. Thanks for the thoughts. I do appreciate them and don't disagree a whole lot with that you are saying either. I think we may be coming to the same result from 2 different angles.