You know, I didn’t hear any threats, partly because the yelling was so loud and there were so many people that it was hard to make out any coherent phrases at all.
At the same time, though, I think it’s you that’s doing some hand-waving here. “They didn’t utter any specifically threatening sentences, and they didn’t physically attack her, so there was nothing threatening about the behavior” is a very bad way to interpret this situation.
The type of behavior displayed in that video is threatening, whether or not any explicit threats were uttered and whether or not any physical contact was made. I would have no problem drawing the same conclusion if the crowd was supporting Black Lives Matter, the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, or opposing abortion rights. Laws on assault and threatening behavior don’t always require an explicitly articulated threat, and nor do they always require actual physical contact. And, beyond the question of legality, behavior like this by a mob is threatening, especially when the numbers on either side are so disproportionate, and when the individual being crowded is in such a vulnerable position, has no opportunity to retreat, and has done nothing at all to provoke or inflame anger.
I’m not sure what I would have done in that situation. My inclination would be to explain: that I fully support most of the key aims of the Black Lives Matter movement; that as a person who has taught United States history at the university level for 15 years I probably know more about the history of racial inequality in the United States than everyone in that crowd put together; that I take a keen interest in legal issues like qualified immunity and the court rulings surrounding police uses of force; and that I’m not in the habit of having my words and actions dictated by a mob of angry morons.
Given the hysteria evidenced in the video, though, I doubt I could have made those things clear without being shouted into inaudibility, so maybe I would have just stuck my fist in the air so that the assholes would move on.
The ones I’m familiar with require a specific threat OR actual physical contact. What Iggy quoted is that someone must “threaten such assault”. I’m asking if anyone “threatened assault.”
I fully agree that these protestors were being major assholes. But I don’t see any evidence that they were committing assault by any legal definition, nor that they were threatening violence. Using your voice loudly and rudely != being threatening.
Generally, “assault” is defined as the threat or use of force on an individual that causes them to have a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact. Assault is treated very seriously in DC. It could be seen as just a civil wrong or a criminal offense.”
If someone is in your personal space, with their face inches away from yours, screaming at you, with a mob behind them, it’s perfectly reasonable to feel threatened.
Of course, you may be trying to draw a distinction between an actual threat (ie. “I’m going to kill you”) and threatening behaviour (ie. “I’m going to act in such a way as to make you reasonably fear for your safety”) but is that really a hair worth splitting?
In order for it to qualify, there must be at least the threat of force. Threats must be communicated. Yelling orders at people, even in a large group, does not appear to meet that requirement, absent a specific threat of violence.
The “threatening behavior” definition that TheCuse offered is interesting, but bizarre: does some jurisdictions really making “slamming doors” a crime? In any case, I don’t think that this phrase appears in DC law, so I’m not sure it’s relevant.
Look, I don’t know. None of y’all do, either. But these jerks are on video, and some of them are identified. If the DC DA brings charges, I’ll cheerfully concede. But from what I can see, they didn’t violate assault laws while they were being assholes.
Sorry, I’m not interested in splitting that particular hair with you. If the behaviour of those little shits doesn’t meet the legal definition of threatening then the law is wrong.
Solon v. United States 196 A.3d 1283 (D.C. 2018) on disorderly conduct (D.C. Code § 22-1321 (a)(1)) might be more relevant and informative than intent-to-frighten assault, which usually involves pointing a gun or knife at someone. State would have to prove that Victor was in reasonable fear of herself or her property being harmed or taken. The case also involved protesters so it is especially relevant, but I’m not sure if the dangers of contracting COVID-19 add a new twist.
I think it is unlikely that charges will be brought out of this.
“What would you do if an angry mob demands you raise your fist in support?”
See if I could spot an SDMBer in the group and side track them into the definition of mob or demand or raise or fist or support. Then wait for the surge from the polar icecap melt to reach us.
Yeah, if folks were saying, “This is disorderly conduct!” then I’d have no beef with them, and they probably also wouldn’t be internet-tough-guying about how they’d punch/mace/shoot the assholes.
With regards to intent-to-frighten assault, here is the standard set of jury instructions from the D.C. red book (excluding special instructions for assault of one’s child):
The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that:
defendent committed a threatening act that reasonably would create in another person a fear of immediate injury;
S/he intended to cause injury to or create fear in the complainant/another person; and
At the time, defendant had the apparent ability to injure complainant/another person; and
That the defendant’s conduct was not justified by the use of reasonable parental discipline.
Injury means any physical injury, however small, including a touching offensive to a person of reasonable sensibility. The government must prove a threatening act; mere words are not sufficient. The government need not prove that the defendent intended to injure the complainant. To prove that the defendant had the apparent present ability to injure the complainant, the government need not prove the complainant actually experienced fear of injury. It is sufficient to prove that the defendant’s act would have created, in a person of reasonable sensibility, a fear of immediate bodily harm.
The last time someone got in my face and yelled at me, (a roommates boyfriend) I hit them in the face. It was a long time ago but I don’t think I felt particularly threatened at the time I hit the asshole. I was just pissed off. I did feel threatened right afterwards, mostly because I’d just punched a guy that was bigger and stronger than me and intoxicated, as well.
Luckily it worked, it shut him up and shut him down and he never bothered me again. I also made the calculation that he wouldn’t call the cops. Because I struck the first blow. I could’ve been in trouble. The yelling didn’t count.
I’ve been around plenty of abusive and toxic relationships, and yelling in someone’s face is not the same as striking them. Regardless of what was claimed upthread, you can’t get the cops to charge assault for that. Someone I worked for tried to get a coworker arrested for it a couple of times. It won’t get you a restraining order. Another employee at a company I worked had the boss do the yelling six inches from your face thing to him and he quit. He tried to get unemployment based on the incident. He took it to court and lost. I e known several women in dysfunctional relationships that unsuccessfully tried to take legal action based on verbal abuse only. It didn’t work.
I’m not necessarily in agreement with this -and I’ve seen cops and courts exhibit some sympathy - but, in the US at least, it’s mostly a free speech issue. Try to get a restraining order sometime because of verbal harassment. You won’t get far. I didn’t.