Doesn't this also means even if a peaceful protester is the victim of an assault at the protest that they could be arrested or have their assets seized?
ETA: Here is the proposed bill, and the relevant section:
A. A person commits riot if, with two or more other persons acting together, such person recklessly uses force or violence or threatens to use force or violence, if such threat is accompanied by immediate power of execution, which EITHER disturbs the public peace OR RESULTS IN DAMAGE TO THE PROPERTY OF ANOTHER PERSON.
That may seem reasonable on the surface, but two things:
1) Obviously "threatens" to use force or violence is very open to interpretation, and it therefor fairly exploitable. Protests often have chanting or shouting that could feel threatening to someone or other...
2) The term reckless I assume is not casually in there. Reckless is actually a legal term regarding mens rea. As I understand it, Recklessness would not describe criminal *intent* but there is still criminal liability (as they should have known better and not been criminally reckless). Recklessness shows less criminal culpability than intention, but more criminal culpability than negligence. So, again, interpretation. Could a good lawyer show that the organizers/participants in a protest been reckless, either just holding a protest because of what it is about (great….), or how they went about planning and putting together their protest, or how the protest was managed (or not) during the actual protest? Or could a corrupt system, or bias/prejudice, just railroad people as having been reckless for their peaceful planning/participating in a protest? With the happenings in N. Dakota that I have been following, I have no doubt. If that is the wish of TPTB it will happen.
Edited by sierraleone, 25 February 2017 - 12:16 AM.