Violence at a Protest Rally
My question involves criminal law for the state of: California
Here is the video showing the male striking the female during a street brawl & protest.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjFyep_0tPM
Here is what we know, feel free to add more details if you have any.
Woman:
The woman dressed herself to represent a political group known as Antifa. Antifa is known to mace & attack people who protest against their political ideologies.
The women showed intent on facebook to 'scalp 100 nazis' before the event.
Man:
The man is affiliated with a controversial group that condones white supremacy.
The male has a history of violence in the form of armed robbery and a background in the military.
Was it legal to punch this woman standing her ground in this scenario? The police did not intervene for some reason.
Disclaimer: I'm in no way condoning assault, white supremacy or attacking people for their beliefs.
I believe it is still illegal to strike someone in this matter given the situation. What do you guys think?
Re: Violence at a Protest Rally
Since there was really no way to determine anyone's prior intent, who they were and who the pair might have represented was largely irrelevant. They could all have been arrested for a number of misdemeanor offenses. In fact, there should have been mass arrests. This was not a protest, it was a brawl. Elements of both sides arrived determined to engage in violence. While some involved may have truly sought to engage in peaceful protest, too many were itching for a fight, and in spite of a lot of advanced notice, the police chose not to beef up for this event.
The police in Berkeley effectively stood down for a number of reasons, not the least of which was a lack of manpower to effectively intervene. And, quite frankly, from the police perspective these days, there is less liability to do nothing at all than to act and engage in physical confrontation. In the end, by the time Oakland PD arrived with effective numbers, much of the violence had already dissipated.
Re: Violence at a Protest Rally
Quote:
Was it legal to punch this woman standing her ground in this scenario?
I stopped the video at several key seconds and it's clear that the woman wasn't "standing her ground" she was moving toward him with her arms outstretched and appears to have laid hands on him just before he struck her.
On the other hand, it also appears that he was moving toward her with his right arm raised in a striking position.
There isn't likely to be any way of telling from the video whether she was anticipating his attack or he was anticipating hers.
My take is that they should both be charged as they both looked like they were itching for a fight.
Re: Violence at a Protest Rally
In addition to a few others, this one would seem to be an easy call for most of what I saw from the news:
PC 415
Any of the following persons shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not more than 90 days, a fine of not more than four hundred dollars ($400), or both such imprisonment and fine:
(1) Any person who unlawfully fights in a public place or challenges another person in a public place to fight.
Re: Violence at a Protest Rally
The video say so much and so little, all at the same time.
Does the male strike the female without provocation, or is he defending himself from her advancing upon him and trying to strike him in the chest?
Is the woman advancing upon the man and attempting to hit him in the chest, or she moving forward and raising her hands in a defensive stance to hold off an angry man who is charging her?
Did each mistakenly perceive the other was attacking them and engage in what they both thought was self defense?
Such a distinction is impossible to make from the video and best left for the halls of debate rather than a criminal court. Given that representatives from these two groups routinely come together at Berkeley to voluntarily engage each other in violence, most prosecutors often view such matters as "mutual combat," where both participants are criminally liable under Section 415 of the Penal Code, as cdwjava pointed out. Such cases are rarely prosecuted because they are just that - mutual combat.
It is naive to believe that the police would stop and take a time out in the middle of a riot to do a battery investigation, take names, addresses, interview victims & witnesses, find out the perception and intent of each participant to determine if this was an intentional battery or self defense, and write an investigation report while hundreds of people are tearing up the campus and downtown area. The police are going to be too busy trying to separate and disperse people, keeping the peace and arresting those who commit more serious crimes.
This is a "go nowhere crime" with respect to prosecuting either participant for striking the other. Civil court is the best venue if either party wishes to pursue it.
Re: Violence at a Protest Rally
Quote:
Civil court is the best venue if either party wishes to pursue it.
It would be a good one for Judge Judy.
Re: Violence at a Protest Rally
One of the best ways to address such matters is to arrest for PC 415(1) as it resolved the matter by the arrest. Even if it is not prosecuted, the parties are separated and can spend a few hours in a holding cell until released with a court date (a citation).
Re: Violence at a Protest Rally
Why can't adults just pretend to act like adults? *Sigh*
Re: Violence at a Protest Rally
I know this is a fairly old thread, but I just stumbled upon it. In my opinion, the scene shown in the video is not a “protest/counter-protest” – it is a riot, pure and simple. There is chaos and multiple acts of intentional and prolonged violence everywhere in the camera’s frame of view, even when the camera is panned.
With nothing to go on besides the video, it is impossible to determine the actions of either of the parties OP is asking about prior to when they enter the camera’s field of view or what their intent was when they did enter view of the camera. However, it does not APPEAR that either is attempting to escape the chaos or making any attempt to calm the scene. What it APPEARS is that both are intentionally advancing to join the fray and, in so doing, engage each other. Therefore, in my opinion, neither can make a valid claim of assault as it truly was “mutual combat.” Further, because of the widespread violence going on around them, both are guilty of more than a simple disorderly conduct – akin to a couple of drunks going out behind the bar to posture and fight. I believe that it would be appropriate to charge both with rioting, which, while still a misdemeanor, carries the possibility of a stiffer penalty than disorderly.
Unfortunately, the major media outlets delight in distorting definitions when reporting such events recently. “Peaceful protest” is interpreted as “there were sporadic acts of vandalism, major disruptions to traffic and free travel, and lots of hateful and violent rhetoric – but no major amounts of blood was spilled nor were any buildings burned (dumpsters or even vehicles don’t seem to count as “real” arson) or other violent felonies.” “Mostly peaceful protest” means “there was serious violence, property damage, arson, etc., but there is no proof that more than 50% of those present were actively engaged in any of those acts – MOST of the rioters (50.1%) limited themselves to merely actively blocking the police when they tried to identify and apprehend those so engaged.” In that media environment, few prosecutors are willing to follow through with charges for those rounded up in group arrests for things like disorderly or rioting. They will only charge those positively identifiable on video while doing things like committing felony level assaults or taking an axe to the firehose of the firemen trying to put out the arson fires. Therefore, the cops are directed to “contain” the chaos and violence rather than attempt to quell it by arresting those causing it (and risk being sued – or worse, being subjected to a civil rights investigation – for “provoking” someone already actively participating in a riot).
Just my personal opinion and two cents on the topic – take it for what you will.
Re: Violence at a Protest Rally
Having some personal knowledge of two events in Berkeley (including the one referred to in the above video), the orders that effectively were "stand down" orders came from upon high. The first, from Admin at UC Berkeley, and the one above from BPD administration with some conflicting tales of city hall involvement.
At least in CA (and to a good extent, OR and WA as well), there is a serious political reluctance to intervene against protesters and rioters that are to the left side of the spectrum. In CA's case, it comes from a continued rush to coddle the criminal and the deviant, and disparage all that might raise a hand to question the increased taxes, red ink, and socialist legislation.
Re: Violence at a Protest Rally
Quote:
Quoting
cdwjava
Having some personal knowledge of two events in Berkeley (including the one referred to in the above video), the orders that effectively were "stand down" orders came from upon high. The first, from Admin at UC Berkeley, and the one above from BPD administration with some conflicting tales of city hall involvement.
At least in CA (and to a good extent, OR and WA as well), there is a serious political reluctance to intervene against protesters and rioters that are to the left side of the spectrum. In CA's case, it comes from a continued rush to coddle the criminal and the deviant, and disparage all that might raise a hand to question the increased taxes, red ink, and socialist legislation.
Edited.
(Not worth it ... all of that criminal and deviant activity taking over my brain, obviously)
Re: Violence at a Protest Rally
Quote:
Quoting
Dogmatique
Edited.
(Not worth it ... all of that criminal and deviant activity taking over my brain, obviously)
Missed whatever it was. Maybe it is the daily dope and petty theft arrests (among the criminal and deviant by an objective standard) of the same people that are driving me nuts.
If it was that query about personally observed protests in WA or OR, that would be zero. How many am I aware of through friends that worked them? Quite a number. Are ALL protests filled with violence and destruction? Of course not. We here in CA seem to have a greater tolerance for such acts than many other places. Ironically, the destruction seems to occur in those places that tend to favor the political leanings of the rioters.
Re: Violence at a Protest Rally
Exactly, Carl.
I certainly miss the weather and scenery in CA, but I am still glad I got out when I did...although WA aint exactly a bastion of law & order ferver, either
Re: Violence at a Protest Rally
All the more reason why I intend to flee in 3 1/2 years when I get retirement #2.
With increased taxes, rising utility rates even with cut use, a soft-on-crime/anti-police attitude, and an ever increasing likelihood of state and local insolvency to varying degrees, it's time to flee.
Re: Violence at a Protest Rally
I guess I'll chime in here, two months later (and a month after the most recent post).
This woman was caught on camera throwing glass bottles at 'pro-free-speech' members, which exploded on impact both from the force of the contact with the ground, as well as M80 firecrackers inside the glass. This was documented to be happening several times. In one instance and from another angle, just before the punch delivered to her, she's seen carrying another glass bottle (green, I believe), likely with the same intent. For all intents and purposes, at Berkeley they had IEDs.
Is it self-defense in this case? Depends on what she has in her hands, if anything.