Quote:
Originally Posted by Red__Zed
Where is your legal backing for the scenario you have drawn up?
*If* there was sufficient evidence to point to this event being a riot (unlawful assembly is far more likely), the guy in question is *at best* a participant and even that is a difficult reach.
|
I'm likely not going to get a very accurate legal definition, but a riot is just a group of people with common intent to cause violence.
"Riot" is very often associated with political meanings, picketing, looting, public assembly. But it's more broad than that. In regards to unlawful assembly, the inclusion of violence is what moves that term up to "riot."
From there, you get down to who is a participant in a riot or not, and typically if you're in the vicinity, you're a participant. It's even more damning if you're previously part of the group, in shared uniform, or otherwise moving in concert with the group.
There is (I should say "should be" since I'm not smart enough nor in the legal field and experienced in looking it up) case precedence that nearby persons are charged/tried as participants when they've said they were not.
More than likely that is all arguable based on context and whether a prosecutor in a criminal case feels it worthwhile to pursue.