Hey Internet Legal Scholars™

[Liar]

Is there a clear legal definition of what a riot is and isn't?

Since "non-violent protest" is apparently fine, but "riot" isn't, at what point does one transition into the other? Is there a specific point of... rambunctiousness?

 

[bellisarius]

"Violence" is the determining factor.

 

[Liar]

"Violence" is the determining factor.

Yeah ok, but violence is already illegal.

 

[bellisarius]

Riot:

1a : a violent public disorder specifically : a tumultuous disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons assembled together and acting with a common intent
b : public violence, tumult, or disorder

 

[wabbitfoot]

Yeah ok, but violence is already illegal.

if you have to AXE

you arent really looking for an answer

 

[Liar]

Riot:

1a : a violent public disorder specifically : a tumultuous disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons assembled together and acting with a common intent
b : public violence, tumult, or disorder

Yeah I can Google up Merraim-Webster too. Doesn't really answer the question. That could technically mean a bunch of people having a party in a park, as long as someone deems their behavior too "tumultuous".

 

[wabbitfoot]

fuck off with the foolishness

you dont want an answer

 

[Liar]

I see Bubbles is yapping at my heels again. Cute.

 

[colddiesel]

Is there a clear legal definition of what a riot is and isn't?

It was codified under the Civil Rights Act 1968. There's a wiki article dealing briefly with all the Anglo countries including the USA. Google "Riot Act."

 

[oggbashan]

In the UK it is quite specific.

A Police commander has to invoke the "Riot Act" by making a public announcement, usually over a loudspeaker, that he is doing it.

Once done, the Police can use force up to and including lethal force. Because the consequences are severe and could lead to many deaths, the UK Police are very reluctant to use the Riot Act.

Most UK 'riots' are not officially riots because the Riot Act has not been invoked, but even the threat of using it can calm protesters down. The UK police are trained to use non-lethal force when confronting civil disturbances. Even individual firearms officers would be reluctant to open fire on a crowd which a Riot Act announcement would authorise.

We have folk memories of the Peterloo Massacre and the Amritsar shootings.

A UK 'riot' is usually an inaccurate media shorthand for a violent civil disorder, not an official definition.

The last time the original Riot Act warning was used was in 1919. Seven people were shot dead by the armed forces ordered to assist the police in 1878. The act has been replaced but the replacement legislation still has a very narrow definition of 'riot'.

 

[bellisarius]

Yeah I can Google up Merraim-Webster too. Doesn't really answer the question. That could technically mean a bunch of people having a party in a park, as long as someone deems their behavior too "tumultuous".

The legal definition is virtually identical to the dictionary definition. The law is "words" and their meaning. The legal definition of Riot is;

A disturbance of the peace by several persons, assembled and acting with a common intent in executing a lawful or unlawful enterprise in a violent and turbulent manner.

The "Riot Act" that colddiesel refers to contained in the 1968 Civil Rights Act pertains to crossing state lines to participate in, organize, or aid and abet a riot. This federalizes riot activities in certain instances up to and including interstate communications and/or monies used to support riotous activities. What is unclear is whether that law will extend to those that actively promote such activities such as certain members of the press and/or public officials, activities that would normally be protected under the 1st amendment. (Are they the equivalent of yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater?)

A great many non-participants are potentially facing federal criminal charges.

 

[wabbitfoot]

A great many non-participants are potentially facing federal criminal charges.

slap on wrists....maybe

all the rioters from Inauguaration Day were let out free

btw, celebs and Biden staffers are paying bail

WHY?

https://scontent-sjc3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/101296842_1638632542942211_8476932005282447360_n.jpg?_nc_cat=102&_nc_sid=8024bb&_nc_ohc=TV0auMumFiMAX9CrfYw&_nc_ht=scontent-sjc3-1.xx&oh=30d2a2a2435aedb5d18ef04fe36a6887&oe=5EFC22B6

 

[icanhelp1]

The legal definition is virtually identical to the dictionary definition. The law is "words" and their meaning. The legal definition of Riot is;

A disturbance of the peace by several persons, assembled and acting with a common intent in executing a lawful or unlawful enterprise in a violent and turbulent manner.

The "Riot Act" that colddiesel refers to contained in the 1968 Civil Rights Act pertains to crossing state lines to participate in, organize, or aid and abet a riot. This federalizes riot activities in certain instances up to and including interstate communications and/or monies used to support riotous activities. What is unclear is whether that law will extend to those that actively promote such activities such as certain members of the press and/or public officials, activities that would normally be protected under the 1st amendment. (Are they the equivalent of yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater?)

A great many non-participants are potentially facing federal criminal charges.

DC arrested Charged over a hundred and prosecutors dropped the charges and let them go. That’s a good look! WTF?

 

[wabbitfoot]

DC arrested Charged over a hundred and prosecutors dropped the charges and let them go. That’s a good look! WTF?

same as the rioters on Inauguration Day

what did you expect?

they are SCARED of them....that they will show up at their homes and burn em

 

[bellisarius]

DC arrested Charged over a hundred and prosecutors dropped the charges and let them go. That’s a good look! WTF?

It seems that we're truly on our own now.

 

[phrodeau]

slap on wrists....maybe

all the rioters from Inauguaration Day were let out free

btw, celebs and Biden staffers are paying bail

WHY?

https://scontent-sjc3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/101296842_1638632542942211_8476932005282447360_n.jpg?_nc_cat=102&_nc_sid=8024bb&_nc_ohc=TV0auMumFiMAX9CrfYw&_nc_ht=scontent-sjc3-1.xx&oh=30d2a2a2435aedb5d18ef04fe36a6887&oe=5EFC22B6

Open your business under lockdown, get arrested by racist, violent cops, and be asphyxiated to death.

Let that fucking sink in.

 

[bestone4ever]

slap on wrists....maybe

all the rioters from Inauguaration Day were let out free

btw, celebs and Biden staffers are paying bail

WHY?

https://scontent-sjc3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/101296842_1638632542942211_8476932005282447360_n.jpg?_nc_cat=102&_nc_sid=8024bb&_nc_ohc=TV0auMumFiMAX9CrfYw&_nc_ht=scontent-sjc3-1.xx&oh=30d2a2a2435aedb5d18ef04fe36a6887&oe=5EFC22B6

You can't spell. Let that sink in.

 

[Rightguide]

Yeah I can Google up Merraim-Webster too. Doesn't really answer the question. That could technically mean a bunch of people having a party in a park, as long as someone deems their behavior too "tumultuous".

This is the legal definition in the United States Code:

18 U.S. Code § 2102. Definitions


(a) As used in this chapter, the term “riot” means a public disturbance involving (1) an act or acts of violence by one or more persons part of an assemblage of three or more persons, which act or acts shall constitute a clear and present danger of, or shall result in, damage or injury to the property of any other person or to the person of any other individual or (2) a threat or threats of the commission of an act or acts of violence by one or more persons part of an assemblage of three or more persons having, individually or collectively, the ability of immediate execution of such threat or threats, where the performance of the threatened act or acts of violence would constitute a clear and present danger of, or would result in, damage or injury to the property of any other person or to the person of any other individual.
(b) As used in this chapter, the term “to incite a riot”, or “to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot”, includes, but is not limited to, urging or instigating other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.

 

[Liar]

This is the legal definition in the United States Code:

18 U.S. Code § 2102. Definitions


(a) As used in this chapter, the term “riot” means a public disturbance involving (1) an act or acts of violence by one or more persons part of an assemblage of three or more persons, which act or acts shall constitute a clear and present danger of, or shall result in, damage or injury to the property of any other person or to the person of any other individual or (2) a threat or threats of the commission of an act or acts of violence by one or more persons part of an assemblage of three or more persons having, individually or collectively, the ability of immediate execution of such threat or threats, where the performance of the threatened act or acts of violence would constitute a clear and present danger of, or would result in, damage or injury to the property of any other person or to the person of any other individual.

(b) As used in this chapter, the term “to incite a riot”, or “to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot”, includes, but is not limited to, urging or instigating other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.

Ok, that makes it pretty clear to me. Violence or the threat of violence must be present. Violence = against persons or property.

Meaning that being a nuicance is not rioting. Being loud, annoying and in the way (except in special cases, like being in the way of first responders, as in the case mentioned in another thread) is, well, something else.

 

[Rightguide]

Ok, that makes it pretty clear to me. Violence or the threat of violence must be present. Violence = against persons or property.

Meaning that being a nuicance is not rioting. Being loud, annoying and in the way (except in special cases, like being in the way of first responders, as in the case mentioned in another thread) is, well, something else.

No but we've been seeing that last week is riotous behavior in violation of American law. and subject to appropriate forceful enforcement.

 

[silver gurl]

Last I knew, we were only allowed to gather outdoors in groups of 10 and under. I am a bit lost.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Is there a clear legal definition of what a riot is and isn't?

Since "non-violent protest" is apparently fine, but "riot" isn't, at what point does one transition into the other? Is there a specific point of... rambunctiousness?

The conservative dictionary defines riot as two or more non-whites in a public space. Period. see also "looting", "gang banging", and "target practice"

 

[Liar]

Last I knew, we were only allowed to gather outdoors in groups of 10 and under. I am a bit lost.

Yeah that cat left the bag 2 weeks ago in Michigan.

 

[Mal_Huevo]

It seems that we're truly on our own now.

You are, it's up to you to take america back! Grab your gun and walker and defend your country like a man, dont whine like a bitch like bobo.

 

[Mal_Huevo]

The conservative dictionary defines riot as two or more non-whites in a public space. Period. see also "looting", "gang banging", and "target practice"

Thugs. You forgot thugs.