I wish protesters would work from home and stay home and destroy their own property.
This is exactly what I was getting at; none of us are lawyers, so splitting hairs about exactly what this would be legally is idiotic.
Can we all agree that the protesters were out of line and that law enforcement probably should have been involved, regardless of exactly what nit we need to pick to define the exact crime in question?
After a bit of googling, a lot of jurisdictions have something called Intimidation/Threat/Criminal Threat/Threatening Behavior that sure sounds like it was intended for situations similar to this. Or maybe menacing/coercion would work? I don’t know- I’m neither a lawyer nor a cop.
Why would anyone place themselves inches from my face and yell commands at me, if not to present themselves as a credible threat to my safety in the event that I choose not to comply? Their message was perfectly audible from three feet away. Why are they now six inches away, leaning in, flexing, and screaming?
It may be that you personally wouldn’t feel your physical safety is threatened in that situation. It seems we disagree on whether a reasonable person would be justified in feeling their physical safety is threatened, and on what constitutes a reasonable response to such a threat.
Do I need to wait until someone is actively stabbing/shooting/punching me before I’m allowed to exert a violent defense?
An interesting write-up here on the “reasonable person” legal defense.
Because unless/until someone comes up with video of a second incident, this “raise your fists” mob was a one-off while the armed and maskless capitol marchers happened multiple times.
I keep using the biblical “plank from your eye before the splinter in mine” line on Straight Dope because it seems to be a right-wing or Trumpist mode of argument on this board to tut-tut about something the left did while studiously ignoring worse things the far right did more often.
Of course, that comes from well beyond the borders of this board, and right from the “top.” Trump vehemently condemned the MAGAist shot in Portland after several days of not saying diddly-boo about the protesters shot in Kenosha by an underage carpetbagging “militia” “man.”
Because their complaint is that they’ve been ignored, and they’re trying to make themselves impossible to ignore.
– no, that doesn’t make it a good idea. But I think ‘why’ is pretty obvious.
If they were doing that to people on their own who they’d followed down alleyways or into elevators, yes, that’s a threat. In the middle of a diner full of other people in the middle of the day? It’s an annoyance. It’s a particularly bad idea in the middle of a pandemic, of course, and that’s probably what I’d say to them, if I were eating inside in a public place in the middle of a pandemic in the first place: please back off, I don’t want to risk catching covid.
After they backed off, I’d probably raise my fist if I agreed with the underlying issue (which in the case that brought this on I do), and not if I didn’t. I’m not going to chant along with Trump supporters, for instance.
If people in public places where there are lots of others around ordinarily responded to people shouting at them with violence, there’d be a whole different attitude about, and held by, most retail workers.
That is interesting.
It seems to me that the government has a higher bar than the private individual.
While you might be able to sell your reasonable fear defense to a jury, and then be acquitted - the same level of evidence may not be enough to sustain a criminal complaint or application for a restraining order against your verbal attacker.
That’s where the first amendment issues come in. Portions of the laws involving the legality of “annoying and alarming behavior” have been shot down for constitutional reasons. Which is bad news for you if there’s some guy that comes up to you on the street three times a day and tells you how he thinks your hair probably smells good or if your boyfriends ex is texting “U Ugly” at you 50 times a day.
Free speech, baby!
If folks would quit it with the talk about how they’d respond with force and acting like that’d be legally justified, then that nit can easily go away. The nit came up because of that thread.
If folks want to know why I’m splitting the hair over what it means to be threatening, read this account of a roving mob that really did approach people at a restaurant with the intention of starting violence.
Ask why UrbanRedneck started a thread about the DC incident but not the Portland incident: what’s the difference?
FWIW, I never advocated violence here; I do however think that it is extremely threatening for a bunch of people to surround or nearly surround someone and demand they do something/yell at them. They don’t have to be actually threatening or doing things that are explicitly provocative or violent to be threatening.
I don’t think reacting violently would be right, but I also wouldn’t be surprised if some people got spooked and reacted that way in those circumstances. That’s why the police needed to have that under control and come down publicly on those who did that- if for no other reason to telegraph that it’s NOT acceptable behavior by demonstrators to anyone who might be considering doing something like that in the future.
Sam Adams should only have dumped his own tea in the harbor.
I cited disorderly conduct as a specific offense in post #114, as well as court precedent for bringing that charge against protestors and even the successful “woo-woo-woo, like I’m going to touch you, I’m going to come for you [sic]”-is-not-threatening-unless-a-jury-says-so defense.
~Max
Sure, they were assholes, and if the incident had gone on for more than a couple minutes, then the cops probably would have gotten involved.
Sure, charge them with the same thing that we charge men for catcalling women.
Because they are assholes. It’s what assholes do.
I suppose we will. And the fact that the “mob” did not iniatiate any violence against those who did not acceed to their demands is pretty good evidence that there was no actual threat.
You are correct that many people are poor at reading a situation and determining what amount of threat they actually are under, so you are probably correct that they would feel as though they are in a far threatening situation than they actually are.
You should wait until someone actually wields a knife or brandishes a gun, sure, not just assume that they have one or will, but you don’t have to wait until you are stabbed or shot. The violent display of a weapon is a threat.
Punching, no, actually you should not be the first one to initiate violence. It is very likely that there would be no violence in the situation unless you choose to initiate it.
(Did anyone in the “mob” have a gun or a knife? Or is that addition of “stabbed/shot” just pure hypothetical?)
If, while they were in my face, I coughed on them, is that assault?
From the latter:
On April 7, police say, a 49-year-old man in DeBary, Florida, near Orlando, coughed on a 21-year-old cashier at a tool outlet, complaining, “This is getting out of hand. This is why everywhere I go, I cough behind everyone with a mask on.” He later told police he was joking. They charged him with assault.
I am almost always one that advocates restraint in tense situations, but if I found myself confronted by people and perceived that they were there to intimidate me or impede my free movement, I couldn’t guarantee that I wouldn’t totally flip out on them. It would really depend on my mood in that moment. Common sense should prevail: people can protest without bullying or threatening people who are just minding their own business. I have an intense psychological complex when it comes to bullying as someone who’s been in the receiving end of it, in the sense that as an adult, if I think someone’s doing it now, I could literally go fucking nuts, and it would get ugly right quick.
I guess you missed the part where I said I strongly disagreed with the people that were yelling at diners and (probably) would get myself in trouble with them by not quietly accepting such behavior.
I’ll stand by what I said about the notion of arresting people for “whatever”, however. One doesn’t have to be a lawyer to understand the law is generally very specific about what one can and cannot be arrested for. AFAIK, however, nothing more has occurred out of this incident than a lot of discussion on social media and message boards, so apparently we will never find out where the line of “whatever” might have been drawn.
Missed edit window. Substitute ‘charged with’ for ‘arrested for’.
A perception need not be accurate to be reasonable. Bearing that in mind, your admission that many people would perceive a threat doesn’t mesh well with your insistence that such a perception is unreasonable.
Sorry, did not intend to imply that weapons were involved in the actual confrontation seen in the video. Just wondering about your broader rules of engagement.
Been there too. Learned that punching the bully is almost never the best way to get them to leave you alone.
As I said, many people are unreasonable.
The assholes demanding that people join in solidarity with them certainly were unreasonable. (I mean, really what sense does that even make? I change my description of them from mere assholes to stupid and unreasonable assholes.)
The diners who didn’t give them what they wanted, and did not respond with violence were very reasonable.
I am just putting this here for informational purposes. From the Code of the District of Columbia:
§ 22–1321. Disorderly conduct.
(a) In any place open to the general public, and in the communal areas of multi-unit housing, it is unlawful for a person to:
(1) Intentionally or recklessly act in such a manner as to cause another person to be in reasonable fear that a person or property in a person’s immediate possession is likely to be harmed or taken;
(2) Incite or provoke violence where there is a likelihood that such violence will ensue; or
(3) Direct abusive or offensive language or gestures at another person (other than a law enforcement officer while acting in his or her official capacity) in a manner likely to provoke immediate physical retaliation or violence by that person or another person.
(b) It is unlawful for a person to engage in loud, threatening, or abusive language, or disruptive conduct, with the intent and effect of impeding or disrupting the orderly conduct of a lawful public gathering, or of a congregation of people engaged in any religious service or in worship, a funeral, or similar proceeding.
(c) It is unlawful for a person to engage in loud, threatening, or abusive language, or disruptive conduct with the intent and effect of impeding or disrupting the lawful use of a public conveyance by one or more other persons.
(c-1) It is unlawful for a person to engage in loud, threatening, or abusive language, or disruptive conduct in a public building with the intent and effect of impeding or disrupting the orderly conduct of business in that public building.
(d) It is unlawful for a person to make an unreasonably loud noise between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. that is likely to annoy or disturb one or more other persons in their residences.
(e) It is unlawful for a person to urinate or defecate in public, other than in a urinal or toilet.
(f) It is unlawful for a person to stealthily look into a window or other opening of a dwelling, as defined in § 6-101.07, under circumstances in which an occupant would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. It is not necessary that the dwelling be occupied at the time the person looks into the window or other opening.
(g) It is unlawful, under circumstances whereby a breach of the peace may be occasioned, to interfere with any person in any public place by jostling against the person, unnecessarily crowding the person, or placing a hand in the proximity of the person’s handbag, pocketbook, or wallet.
(h) A person who violates any provision of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be fined not more than the amount set forth in § 22-3571.01, imprisoned not more than 90 days, or both.