OSU Wants To Suspend Riot Onlookers

onnnews.com ^

[chance33_98]

OSU Wants To Suspend Riot Onlookers

June 7, 2003

Ohio State officials want to be able to suspend students who are onlookers during a riot.

The new violation of "failing to disperse" is among changes to the code proposed this week by the University Senate.

If approved, the change would mean students who stick around after being asked by a police officer or university official to leave could be suspended or face other disciplinary action.

The current code doesn't make clear whether bystanders can be disciplined.

Professor Theresa Early worked on the proposed revision. She says there's been little opposition from students.

Early says students were concerned about infringement on their civil rights but that they were more worried about another round of riots similar to those after the Buckeyes football team beat Michigan in November.

[buckalfa]

As a grad of The Big Farm (72'), my feeling is it is
past time to clean up the riff-raff at 17th and High
and let the University focus on important stuff like
winning football games(sarcasm). I went to class and
obeyed the law during the anti Viet Nam war student
protests during the spring of 1970. Should anything
less be expected of today's students?

[eno_]

What they are really worries about is making any behavior a cop doesn't like illegal.

The fact is cops have no right to order you to do anything if you are not breaking a law or in some other way creating a dangerous situation.

[EggsAckley]

I agree. This smacks of Tianiman Square.

[templar]

The fact is cops have no right to order you to do anything if you are not breaking a law or in some other way creating a dangerous situation.

Onlookers at a riot are participating in the riot even if not engaging in any direct violence. They go away and the riot ends, either immediatlly or much sooner than if they were there. The police on the scene should have the discretion ot order them to leave. The police should also have to justify their actions and show they were nescessary.

[TAP ONLINE]

This onlooker would be a witness to the crimes being committed by either side. It is a right (Freedom of Assembly), if I commit no crime I can(should) not be punished.

[eno_]

The police should also have to justify their actions and show they were nescessary.

The problem with a law that makes it possible for police to make being a bystander illegal is that it inherently removes any standards for showing an order the neccessary.

[Smitty]

My husband is a cop for Columbus for 32 years. He has worked on campus. Just walking he has been hit by rocks and bottles. He doesn't know where they came except from the crowd. I would call that a dangerous situation. Wouldn't you?

[eno_]

I would call that a total failure of doctrine and training. It isn't the responsibility of bystanders to change that.

[templar]

It is a right (Freedom of Assembly),

You need to read the constitution. There is no right to "Freedom of Assembly" in it. There is "the right of the people peaceably to assemble". A riot is NOT peaceable assembly, and no person in their right mind would think of it as such. There are no "onlookers" in a riot situation. They are participants if for no other reason than that they are preventing the police from ending it. I suppose that if there were, say, 1000 "onlookers" at a riot and only a dozen or so molotov coctail throwers you would allow the molotov coctail throwers to run in and out of the "onllookers", hiding among them, and continue killing, burning, destroying in order to protect the "rights" of the "onlookers"? Bet you would be singing a different tune if it was your property or person that got destrouyed or maimed in the riot because of the "rights" of "onlookers".

[eno_]

I think you don't understand the right of freedom of assembly. The very root purpose of that right, RKBA, freedom of the press, and others, is to enable the people to OVERTHROW opression.

Your position might be moer credible if police actually protected private property in riots, or at any time. What is the solution rate for burglary in your jurisdiction?

[Petruchio]

Onlookers at a riot.

Would that include reporters???? Inquiring minds want to know . . .

[eno_]

When every participant at a demonstration has a wireless camera and microphone, and when those pictures can be enhanced to reveal even the masked faces (most digital cameras can take infrared pictures, too) of police, the real reason to get "bystanders" out of the way becomes clear.

Another interesting question comes up when concealed carry gets up to say, 5% of the general population, and police face concealed weapons in more instances. I expect a lot of laws that require intrusive enforement will, miraculously, be "reformed."

[TAP ONLINE]

Ahem, if I would have been an onlooker at one of those "peaceful" antwar demonstrations I would have been a witness for the prosecution. If you Arrest all on lookers, you get no eyewitnesses, no trials, they are free to go to another "peace demonstration".

PS Who are you to say I am not peacefully assembling?

[templar]

I think you don't understand the right of freedom of assembly. The very root purpose of that right, RKBA, freedom of the press, and others, is to enable the people to OVERTHROW opression.

Wonder why the founders were so stupid as to use the word "peacefully" in the first ammendment if it really maens the tright to riot, destroy, and kill government officials as well as private citizens? I think you don't understand the english language, get a dictionary. You don't understand the Constitution either. THERE IS NO FREEDOM Of ASSEMBLY/, there is a right to peacefully assemble. No one of sound mind would consider a riot to be peaceful. You seem to be identifying your state of mind as unsound by insisting that it falls under the right to peacefully assemble.

[templar]

PS Who are you to say I am not peacefully assembling?

Well, lets take a vote of the general public and see how many of them consider a riot to be peacefull. But, of course we don't have to since it's already been done through our elected representatives. The matter is already decided. Just go down to the local law library and look up what constitutes such things as disturbing the peace, unlawfull public conduct, rioting, comitting mayhem, vandalism, destruction of property, assault, battery, etc. You don't need to be a genius to understand those things, an IQ of about 75 will suffice. You're arguing a pretty ridiculous position here, one that I doubt any competant attorney would argue, or allow you to argue, in your defense in court (it would be called legal malpractice if he did).

[eno_]

And so, by your logic, those peacably assembled should be arrested because some among them are not peacable?

Moveover, do you unserstand that our rights are not enumerated by the Constitution?

Our natural rights, which are not enumerated by any document of this government or any other, were understood by the Founders to include those rights neccessary to meet the obligation of people to overthrow opression. The conditions of that obligation are stated in the Declaration.

So, to take a concrete example: When concealed carry becomes commonplace, do you think police beatings of demonstrators will become uncommon? Do you think it is good or bad that the faces and identities of police in riot gear will become visible to cameras, and instantly transmitted to the Web? Do you think the Elian raid could have been carried out if the identities of the individuals involved was dead certain to come out? What about Waco?

[templar]

I would call that a dangerous situation. Wouldn't you?

At least two people on this thread seem to be calling it a constitutional right. Go figure.

[templar]

And so, by your logic, those peacably assembled should be arrested because some among them are not peacable

Where do you come up with stuff like this? The thread concerns only those ordered to disperse by the police and not obeying such orders when public safety dictates such (as in during a riot!), not peacefull persons at a lawfull peacefull assembly. If those "peacefully assembled" are doing rioting, I don't see where you have a leg to stand on. There are no peacefull persons at a riot. Everyone present is taking part in that riot even if not directly engaging in violent acts at any given moment. Peacefull persons generally leave the area when trouble breaks out, and always leave when requested by the police to do so for public safety.

BTW, it's not just my logic, it's the logic of law; in fact it generally is the law. Quit talking out of ignorance and look the laws up. Or hire an attorney for advice if you don't want to do it yourself.

[sinclair]

"PS Who are you to say I am not peacefully assembling?"

You demonstrate your peaceful intent by leaving the scene when ordered to by the authorities. You don't leave, you face consequences.