Quote:
Originally Posted by ElVee
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.
|
The burden for being a participant of a riot requires active encouragement, not merely presence.
There are a lot of legal tricks that could be used against roadkill, but claiming he was part of a riot is pretty unlikely. The group (from all appearances) was largely non-violent and the aggressive actions were that of the minority (most of the guys stayed planted on their bikes even during the beating). If you could build a case that there was a riot, you would need to show participation by roadkill, which is a challenge as he got run over before anything started. Then, to my knowledge, there's no precedent saying that if you are threatened by part of a rioting group you can use deadly force against any of them.
It would be a very uphill legal battle and there are easier methods to get the guy, if that's the route they want to take.