Wisconsin bills would define, criminalize riot participation with enhanced penalties

[TexasTowelie]

A set of Republican bills seeks to set clear guidelines for punishment related to riot participation.

The legislation, introduced Wednesday by Sen. Van Wanggaard, R-Racine, and Rep. John Spiros, R-Marshfield, would make participating in a riot a Class I felony, punishable with a fine of up to $10,000 or a imprisonment of up to three-and-a-half years, or both.

A riot would be defined under the bill as a public disturbance involving an act of violence committed as part of the assembly of three or more people that could result in damage or injury to another person or his or her property, or the threat of such an action if it could be immediately executed.

The legislation is designed to protect public safety while honoring the constitutional rights to peaceably assemble and to bear arms, Spiros said in a statement.

Read more: http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/govt-and-politics/election-matters/wisconsin-bills-would-define-criminalize-riot-participation-with-enhanced-penalties/article_0d4bbe2f-1184-5864-b5e6-a755ac410784.html

[msongs]

1. real world meaning - riot is any group of 1 or more protesting any republican person or policy nt

[lutefisk]

2. This is outrageous. It's unconstitutional.

Matthew Rothschild: 'Riot' bill is unconstitutional

"...under the bill, even if there is no act of violence at all, you can still be convicted of engaging in a riot so long as a member of the group issues a threat of violence. The bill states that it’s a riot when there is “a threat of the commission of an act of violence by one or more persons that are part of an assembly of at least three persons having, individually or collectively, the ability of immediate execution of the threat, if the performance of the threatened act of violence would constitute a clear and present danger of, or would result in, damage or injury to the property of any other person to another person.”...

Nothing in this Wisconsin bill stipulates that the threat must be “imminent” or “likely to incite or produce” an act of violence. All it says is that at least one person in the group must have “the ability” to immediately execute the threat. That’s quite different.

For instance, one of the group members could say, “If this injustice goes on much longer, we should go break some windows.” Under the bill, the speaker — and indeed everyone in the assembled group — could be guilty of a felony because at least one of them, and probably most of them, could throw something through a window (thus meeting the bill’s requirement to have “the ability of immediate execution of the threat”)."

LINK to Cap Times

[dembotoz]

3. was at a jim ott alberta darling town hall this past weekend

ott clearly felt that every person who was there was a registered dem...(wishful thinking on both his and our part)

town hall meeting participants are not viewed as constituents but the enemy.... ott would vote for this bill