Louisiana House Bill HB582

Louisiana 2016 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/4/16
• Refer: 3/4/16
• Refer: 3/14/16
• Report Pass: 3/30/16
• Engrossed: 4/6/16
• Refer: 4/7/16
• Report Pass: 5/10/16
• Enrolled: 5/18/16
• Chaptered: 5/26/16
• Passed: 5/26/16

Caption

Provides for the crime of aggravated assault upon a peace officer (EN INCREASE GF EX See Note)

Impact

By expanding the definition of aggravated assault upon a peace officer, HB582 facilitates a stronger legal framework for prosecuting individuals who pose threats to law enforcement. The law elevates the seriousness with which these assaults are treated, reflecting an emphasis on protecting peace officers in the line of duty. It signals a shift towards recognizing the varied forms violence can take, thus helping legal authorities better address these incidents when they occur.

Summary

House Bill 582 amends current Louisiana law regarding the crime of aggravated assault upon a peace officer. The most significant change is the removal of the requirement that the offense must be committed with a firearm, redefining the terms associated with such assaults. This adjustment broadens the scope of aggravated assault to include various means of committing the act against a peace officer, enhancing penalties for such actions. The amendments also include updated definitions regarding 'offense against a peace officer', knitting them into existing jurisprudence to enforce stricter consequences.

Sentiment

Overall, the sentiment surrounding HB582 appears to be positive among lawmakers, especially those concerned with law enforcement and public safety. The unanimous vote in the Senate indicates a bipartisan agreement on the necessity of safeguarding peace officers against any form of violent aggression. However, the bill has not been without contention; some advocates raise concerns about the broadening of legal definitions, fearing potential misuse or overreach that could lead to criminalizing nonviolent behavior.

Contention

The primary point of contention revolves around how broadly 'aggravated assault' can be interpreted under the new definitions. Critics argue that without careful application, the law could unintentionally penalize individuals who may not intend harm but find themselves in situations where lawful interpretation of the act could lead to charges. Moreover, the elimination of the firearm stipulation may raise questions about the proportionality of responses in conflict between civilians and officers.