Agitators, in addition to being charged with whatever crime they commit as part of their agitation, can also be charged with, or at least sued for, violating the constitutional rights of the peaceable assembly.
So you know, if you are just out and about and you choose to break auto-zone’s window, then you get a vandalism charge, probably just a fine.
If you do so during a demonstration, and that results in the disruption of a peaceful protest, then you can be charged with a more severe crime, or be served by a class action suit for millions of dollars for all the people’s rights you have violated?
Not sure exactly how it should work, but there needs to be something, because right now, it is too easy to undermine a movement with such tactics.
ORS 166.015
(1) A person commits the crime of riot if while participating with five or more other persons the person engages in tumultuous and violent conduct and thereby intentionally or recklessly creates a grave risk of causing public alarm.
(2) Riot is a Class C felony. [1971 c.743 §218]
(a) Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses any facility of interstate or foreign commerce, including, but not limited to, the mail, telegraph, telephone, radio, or television, with intent—
to incite a riot; or
to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot; or
to commit any act of violence in furtherance of a riot; or
to aid or abet any person in inciting or participating in or carrying on a riot or committing any act of violence in furtherance of a riot;
and who either during the course of any such travel or use or thereafter performs or attempts to perform any other overt act for any purpose specified in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D) of this paragraph—
Shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
If the agent provocateur turns out to be a state actor (a laMark Kennedy), ideally the peaceful protestors should be able to build a legal defense around entrapment.
With regards to the words I bolded in your quote RIGHT HERE, you are blaming the victim. And NOBODY blames the victim unless they’re trying to justify the actions of the criminal.
This is a good point. As was shown, the Proud Boys were there stirring up trouble, not a word from the cops. Then once they left, the demonstration was shut down.
And it makes a difference as to whether a demonstration is actually a riot, or whether the police use whatever excuse they can to declare it to be so.
There will always be some judgement call in situations like that, and there will always be some who disagree with it.
I have to admit, there have been times when I may have had an initial reaction somewhat like kearson1’s, where, say, someone like a “proud boy” has gotten in someone’s face with hateful words, and the person has hauled off and punched them. I might, in a first reaction, think: good. But, on second and subsequent thoughts, I would say it was wrong. And not just reluctantly, like, yes, it was an act of civil disobedience and they need to take their jailtime, but good for them. I strongly think (as opposed to an initial feeling) that violence in response to mere words is flat wrong.
Should you warn your kids that doing certain things that they have every right to do could put them in danger? Sure. But you should also emphasize that it unjustly puts them in danger, and teach them to weigh the risks for themselves. People of color and other oppressed minorities would otherwise be paralyzed into complete inaction because people have ill will for them just going about their daily lives. And you should definitely not teach them that if they choose to exercise their rights and someone assaults them, they deserved it.
Oh, really? Have you ever heard, “Well, I’ll just let you off with a warning this time” ? LEOs have enormous discretion in terms of how the law is enforced because they are the ones enforcing it. They get to use their discretion rather freely, which is a big part of what is being protested here. They are playing favorites with all the people who are cheering for them and coming down hard on anyone who wants to criticize them.
Correct, he didn’t put enough weight into what the repercussion might be.
The law is on his side, and he is in the right. It doesn’t lessen the pain he felt or stop the punch from being thrown (and who knows if the law will ever catch up to the perp)
Now if I could get you to comprehend the things I type. After pages of this stuff, you would think that would be an easy task.
People don’t follow the scientific definition (so the reaction isn’t required to be equal), it is enough to know that there might be one to make you think about the action prior to performing it.
He didn’t weigh the potential cost of his words. It got him punched. Yes, it was a criminal act. No, it hasn’t been excused.