LogFAQs > #884982616

From the North Carolina code quoted by Greg Doucette:

§ 14-288.2. Riot; inciting to riot; punishments.
(a) A riot is a public disturbance involving an assemblage of three or more persons which by disorderly and violent conduct, or the imminent threat of disorderly and violent conduct, results in injury or damage to persons or property or creates a clear and present danger of injury or damage to persons or property.
(b) Any person who willfully engages in a riot is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
(c) Any person who willfully engages in a riot is guilty of a Class H felony, if:
(1) In the course and as a result of the riot there is property damage in excess of fifteen hundred dollars ($1,500) or serious bodily injury; or
(2) Such participant in the riot has in his possession any dangerous weapon or substance.
(d) Any person who willfully incites or urges another to engage in a riot, so that as a result of such inciting or urging a riot occurs or a clear and present danger of a riot is created, is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
(e) Any person who willfully incites or urges another to engage in a riot, and such inciting or urging is a contributing cause of a riot in which there is property damage in excess of fifteen hundred dollars ($1,500) or serious bodily injury, shall be punished as a Class F felon.

I don't see "the police didn't stop it, it must not have been violent" as a very strong defense. Certainly the statute contemplates a riot (even a felonious riot) that does not result in physical injury to life. Failure of the police to do their job is not a defense, so you'd be arguing only that it must not have been violent because the police didn't think it was worthwhile to stop it. Which would ordinarily be fairly convincing, except for the direct video and the clear damage to the statue here. Unless there's some special meaning to the word "violent" in North Carolina law that I'm not aware of.

On the other hand, the fact that the DA charged it certainly doesn't mean there is strong evidence for it. if Corrik's friend actually follows that rule, I'd say that county is very very lucky to have a DA office that is doing what they are supposed to do.

As a practical matter, Durham is a pretty liberal place nowadays right? They might not be able to get a jury to convict there.

On a loosely related note, I searched for the North Carolina riot law in Google and the first thing that came up was a statute from 1771, under the British.....which prescribes a MANDATORY DEATH PENALTY for failing to disperse a protest after being ordered to by police, for one hour. I hadn't known the law was so harsh just for a protest in those times. The founders really did risk a lot.
---

September 1, 2003; November 4, 2007; September 2, 2013
Congratulations to DP Oblivion in the Guru Contest!