The prior “if you lose the fight don’t complain” poster sounds unhinged. That’s your take away from this? This wasn’t some sort of organized boxing match, you don’t have a legal right to agree to punch random people in public, sorry.

Even if your dubious exceptions to assault applied here, you can still get charged for disorderly conduct and get expelled from school.

I hope you aren’t a parent.

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know if any of these people have been identified yet?

Even if they have, they will only be ID'd to the police and not the general public since they're minors.

Does anyone know if any of these people have been identified yet?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A WJ parent took their kid to the police station and reported it as an assault.

Police will need to do an investigation to determine if it was an assault or a fight.

You will need to wait for facts.

A police report is not facts, it is a report written when people are interviewed. People can lie in the interview.
A police investigation is usually based on facts (though something they are wrong too).

Kid comes home beaten up and he told his parents, "I was assaulted", it might be the truth or he lied because he didn't want to admit he was in a fight (and lost).

? Assault is assault regardless of whether it was in the middle of several people fighting or not. If you're hit by someone, it's assault. You can call police and press charges. They will determine if you also threw punches, and whether you started it, or whether you exercised reasonable self-defence.

That is not how the laws are written.

Fighting is actually legal. You have the legal right to fight someone else if you choose. If you choose to be in a fight you can't claim assault.

You might be able to argue once somebody is on the ground and being kicked the fight has now turned into an assault.

Just let your children know, if they agree to be in a fight, they can't turn around after they lose a fight and claim assault.

LOL WHAT?

NP - I'm not sure why you're laughing, the PP is right. If groups of students met up to fight, there's noting illegal about that (though it's idiotic). It's not at all clear that is what happened here, though.

What evidence of this agreement to fight would exist to substantiate that both parties were mutually agreeing to a fight? It's not like we have a written contract to go off of.

And further more, how can minors who can't consent to so many things be capable of committing to an agreement of engaging in violent activity with one another?
That is not how the laws are written.

That is what the police will need to do in their investigation. Nobody is saying it was a fight, what was said is that we need to wait until the police investigation is complete to determine if it was a fight vs an assault.

Minors can consent to sex (with each other) and they can consent to fights.

It is how the laws are written.

To continue with your hypothetical, even IF they did both agree to the fight, I'm pretty sure there are laws and ordinances about fighting in public places.

So yeah, maybe minors can fight in the privacy of their homes, but I'm pretty sure there's county law about fighting on the streets. Same way you can be naked in your house, but public nudity is prohibited.

It's not hypothetical, there are many case laws about this, you can google them.

A police officer may determine that it is "disorderly conduct" or "they are blocking a street" and stop the fight, but if the fight does not interfere with the public the police have no obligation to get involved.

Yes, disorderly conduct is the charge I was thinking of. And I don't think a bunch of teenagers fighting in the street as was the case here, especially since the police received calls about the street violence as it was unfolding, would be that hard to prove.

I am pretty sure that the investigation is going to result in some BCC students being charged with assault - at least based on what I've read and been told - and they should be!

I'm pretty sure BCC students AND WJ students will be charged with assault, and disorderly conduct.

it will be simple assault. The WJ parents will get an expensive lawyer and it will eventually go away since they are minors.

Except, according to people who witnessed this, the BCC students attacked the WJ students.

Eyewitness testimony is the least reliable “evidence “. Add that teens lie, add that it was dark, add that nobody saw everything.

Add that you sound like you know WJ people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A WJ parent took their kid to the police station and reported it as an assault.

Police will need to do an investigation to determine if it was an assault or a fight.

You will need to wait for facts.

A police report is not facts, it is a report written when people are interviewed. People can lie in the interview.
A police investigation is usually based on facts (though something they are wrong too).

Kid comes home beaten up and he told his parents, "I was assaulted", it might be the truth or he lied because he didn't want to admit he was in a fight (and lost).

? Assault is assault regardless of whether it was in the middle of several people fighting or not. If you're hit by someone, it's assault. You can call police and press charges. They will determine if you also threw punches, and whether you started it, or whether you exercised reasonable self-defence.

That is not how the laws are written.

Fighting is actually legal. You have the legal right to fight someone else if you choose. If you choose to be in a fight you can't claim assault.

You might be able to argue once somebody is on the ground and being kicked the fight has now turned into an assault.

Just let your children know, if they agree to be in a fight, they can't turn around after they lose a fight and claim assault.

LOL WHAT?

NP - I'm not sure why you're laughing, the PP is right. If groups of students met up to fight, there's noting illegal about that (though it's idiotic). It's not at all clear that is what happened here, though.

What evidence of this agreement to fight would exist to substantiate that both parties were mutually agreeing to a fight? It's not like we have a written contract to go off of.

And further more, how can minors who can't consent to so many things be capable of committing to an agreement of engaging in violent activity with one another?
That is not how the laws are written.

That is what the police will need to do in their investigation. Nobody is saying it was a fight, what was said is that we need to wait until the police investigation is complete to determine if it was a fight vs an assault.

Minors can consent to sex (with each other) and they can consent to fights.

It is how the laws are written.

To continue with your hypothetical, even IF they did both agree to the fight, I'm pretty sure there are laws and ordinances about fighting in public places.

So yeah, maybe minors can fight in the privacy of their homes, but I'm pretty sure there's county law about fighting on the streets. Same way you can be naked in your house, but public nudity is prohibited.

It's not hypothetical, there are many case laws about this, you can google them.

A police officer may determine that it is "disorderly conduct" or "they are blocking a street" and stop the fight, but if the fight does not interfere with the public the police have no obligation to get involved.

Yes, disorderly conduct is the charge I was thinking of. And I don't think a bunch of teenagers fighting in the street as was the case here, especially since the police received calls about the street violence as it was unfolding, would be that hard to prove.

I am pretty sure that the investigation is going to result in some BCC students being charged with assault - at least based on what I've read and been told - and they should be!

I'm pretty sure BCC students AND WJ students will be charged with assault, and disorderly conduct.

it will be simple assault. The WJ parents will get an expensive lawyer and it will eventually go away since they are minors.

Except, according to people who witnessed this, the BCC students attacked the WJ students.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A WJ parent took their kid to the police station and reported it as an assault.

Police will need to do an investigation to determine if it was an assault or a fight.

You will need to wait for facts.

A police report is not facts, it is a report written when people are interviewed. People can lie in the interview.
A police investigation is usually based on facts (though something they are wrong too).

Kid comes home beaten up and he told his parents, "I was assaulted", it might be the truth or he lied because he didn't want to admit he was in a fight (and lost).

? Assault is assault regardless of whether it was in the middle of several people fighting or not. If you're hit by someone, it's assault. You can call police and press charges. They will determine if you also threw punches, and whether you started it, or whether you exercised reasonable self-defence.

That is not how the laws are written.

Fighting is actually legal. You have the legal right to fight someone else if you choose. If you choose to be in a fight you can't claim assault.

You might be able to argue once somebody is on the ground and being kicked the fight has now turned into an assault.

Just let your children know, if they agree to be in a fight, they can't turn around after they lose a fight and claim assault.

LOL WHAT?

NP - I'm not sure why you're laughing, the PP is right. If groups of students met up to fight, there's noting illegal about that (though it's idiotic). It's not at all clear that is what happened here, though.

What evidence of this agreement to fight would exist to substantiate that both parties were mutually agreeing to a fight? It's not like we have a written contract to go off of.

And further more, how can minors who can't consent to so many things be capable of committing to an agreement of engaging in violent activity with one another?
That is not how the laws are written.

That is what the police will need to do in their investigation. Nobody is saying it was a fight, what was said is that we need to wait until the police investigation is complete to determine if it was a fight vs an assault.

Minors can consent to sex (with each other) and they can consent to fights.

It is how the laws are written.

To continue with your hypothetical, even IF they did both agree to the fight, I'm pretty sure there are laws and ordinances about fighting in public places.

So yeah, maybe minors can fight in the privacy of their homes, but I'm pretty sure there's county law about fighting on the streets. Same way you can be naked in your house, but public nudity is prohibited.

It's not hypothetical, there are many case laws about this, you can google them.

A police officer may determine that it is "disorderly conduct" or "they are blocking a street" and stop the fight, but if the fight does not interfere with the public the police have no obligation to get involved.

Yes, disorderly conduct is the charge I was thinking of. And I don't think a bunch of teenagers fighting in the street as was the case here, especially since the police received calls about the street violence as it was unfolding, would be that hard to prove.

I am pretty sure that the investigation is going to result in some BCC students being charged with assault - at least based on what I've read and been told - and they should be!

I'm pretty sure BCC students AND WJ students will be charged with assault, and disorderly conduct.

it will be simple assault. The WJ parents will get an expensive lawyer and it will eventually go away since they are minors.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A WJ parent took their kid to the police station and reported it as an assault.

Police will need to do an investigation to determine if it was an assault or a fight.

You will need to wait for facts.

A police report is not facts, it is a report written when people are interviewed. People can lie in the interview.
A police investigation is usually based on facts (though something they are wrong too).

Kid comes home beaten up and he told his parents, "I was assaulted", it might be the truth or he lied because he didn't want to admit he was in a fight (and lost).

? Assault is assault regardless of whether it was in the middle of several people fighting or not. If you're hit by someone, it's assault. You can call police and press charges. They will determine if you also threw punches, and whether you started it, or whether you exercised reasonable self-defence.

That is not how the laws are written.

Fighting is actually legal. You have the legal right to fight someone else if you choose. If you choose to be in a fight you can't claim assault.

You might be able to argue once somebody is on the ground and being kicked the fight has now turned into an assault.

Just let your children know, if they agree to be in a fight, they can't turn around after they lose a fight and claim assault.

LOL WHAT?

NP - I'm not sure why you're laughing, the PP is right. If groups of students met up to fight, there's noting illegal about that (though it's idiotic). It's not at all clear that is what happened here, though.

What evidence of this agreement to fight would exist to substantiate that both parties were mutually agreeing to a fight? It's not like we have a written contract to go off of.

And further more, how can minors who can't consent to so many things be capable of committing to an agreement of engaging in violent activity with one another?
That is not how the laws are written.

That is what the police will need to do in their investigation. Nobody is saying it was a fight, what was said is that we need to wait until the police investigation is complete to determine if it was a fight vs an assault.

Minors can consent to sex (with each other) and they can consent to fights.

It is how the laws are written.

To continue with your hypothetical, even IF they did both agree to the fight, I'm pretty sure there are laws and ordinances about fighting in public places.

So yeah, maybe minors can fight in the privacy of their homes, but I'm pretty sure there's county law about fighting on the streets. Same way you can be naked in your house, but public nudity is prohibited.

It's not hypothetical, there are many case laws about this, you can google them.

A police officer may determine that it is "disorderly conduct" or "they are blocking a street" and stop the fight, but if the fight does not interfere with the public the police have no obligation to get involved.

Yes, disorderly conduct is the charge I was thinking of. And I don't think a bunch of teenagers fighting in the street as was the case here, especially since the police received calls about the street violence as it was unfolding, would be that hard to prove.

It will be easy to prove disorderly conduct. But assault might be harder. Each person would have to prove they tried to retreat since maryland does not have a stand your ground law they have "duty to retreat".

Are you saying the kid on the ground who was being kicked in the head had a duty to retreat?

What I said was that once the boy was on the ground being kicked in the head the police could possibly find that the fight moved into assault once he hit the ground. Again, that depends. We don't know what the boy did before he was attacked. That might change the police's viewpoint.

If a person is trying to assault or rape you and you are defending yourself, you could argue that you thought if he got up the assault against you could continue and you are protecting yourself from bodily harm.

"It is possible for two people to have committed an assault on each other by fighting and injuring each other. Potentially they both could be charged with an assault. The state could let them both invoke their Fifth Amendment privilege not to testify. They could also decide to do some further investigation and determine which person was the aggressor and pursue that person only.

If an individual caused any serious harm that permanently injured the other person, they can be charged with a felony offense, especially if the injuries require surgery to fix. This kind of charge means someone could end up doing jail time or prison time. Assault cases run the gamut from the least serious, basically the unlawful touching, to the most serious of someone permanently injured."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can’t consent to assault. WTF?

I am sure professional boxers and MMA fighters will be fascinated by your legal analysis, PP. Please, enlighten us further.

There are specific laws for boxers (and probably MMA fighters) because in a court of law boxers have been determined to have "lethal weapons". (not sure about MMA fighters but I'm sure they fall under the boxers laws) It's an urban legend that they have to register their hands as lethal weapons but in a court of law they can be considered lethal weapons.

OK - that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic, but OK.

The laws in fighting are on topic, boxers were mentioned in the thread and I clarified the law.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A WJ parent took their kid to the police station and reported it as an assault.

Police will need to do an investigation to determine if it was an assault or a fight.

You will need to wait for facts.

A police report is not facts, it is a report written when people are interviewed. People can lie in the interview.
A police investigation is usually based on facts (though something they are wrong too).

Kid comes home beaten up and he told his parents, "I was assaulted", it might be the truth or he lied because he didn't want to admit he was in a fight (and lost).

? Assault is assault regardless of whether it was in the middle of several people fighting or not. If you're hit by someone, it's assault. You can call police and press charges. They will determine if you also threw punches, and whether you started it, or whether you exercised reasonable self-defence.

That is not how the laws are written.

Fighting is actually legal. You have the legal right to fight someone else if you choose. If you choose to be in a fight you can't claim assault.

You might be able to argue once somebody is on the ground and being kicked the fight has now turned into an assault.

Just let your children know, if they agree to be in a fight, they can't turn around after they lose a fight and claim assault.

LOL WHAT?

NP - I'm not sure why you're laughing, the PP is right. If groups of students met up to fight, there's noting illegal about that (though it's idiotic). It's not at all clear that is what happened here, though.

No PP is wrong. Source: I went many fights where both halves went to jail.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can’t consent to assault. WTF?

I am sure professional boxers and MMA fighters will be fascinated by your legal analysis, PP. Please, enlighten us further.

There are specific laws for boxers (and probably MMA fighters) because in a court of law boxers have been determined to have "lethal weapons". (not sure about MMA fighters but I'm sure they fall under the boxers laws) It's an urban legend that they have to register their hands as lethal weapons but in a court of law they can be considered lethal weapons.

OK - that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic, but OK.

The lawyers (or wannabe lawyers) posting anonymously on DCUM just HAVE to get their technicality rocks off.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A WJ parent took their kid to the police station and reported it as an assault.

Police will need to do an investigation to determine if it was an assault or a fight.

You will need to wait for facts.

A police report is not facts, it is a report written when people are interviewed. People can lie in the interview.
A police investigation is usually based on facts (though something they are wrong too).

Kid comes home beaten up and he told his parents, "I was assaulted", it might be the truth or he lied because he didn't want to admit he was in a fight (and lost).

? Assault is assault regardless of whether it was in the middle of several people fighting or not. If you're hit by someone, it's assault. You can call police and press charges. They will determine if you also threw punches, and whether you started it, or whether you exercised reasonable self-defence.

That is not how the laws are written.

Fighting is actually legal. You have the legal right to fight someone else if you choose. If you choose to be in a fight you can't claim assault.

You might be able to argue once somebody is on the ground and being kicked the fight has now turned into an assault.

Just let your children know, if they agree to be in a fight, they can't turn around after they lose a fight and claim assault.

LOL WHAT?

NP - I'm not sure why you're laughing, the PP is right. If groups of students met up to fight, there's noting illegal about that (though it's idiotic). It's not at all clear that is what happened here, though.

What evidence of this agreement to fight would exist to substantiate that both parties were mutually agreeing to a fight? It's not like we have a written contract to go off of.

And further more, how can minors who can't consent to so many things be capable of committing to an agreement of engaging in violent activity with one another?
That is not how the laws are written.

That is what the police will need to do in their investigation. Nobody is saying it was a fight, what was said is that we need to wait until the police investigation is complete to determine if it was a fight vs an assault.

Minors can consent to sex (with each other) and they can consent to fights.

It is how the laws are written.

To continue with your hypothetical, even IF they did both agree to the fight, I'm pretty sure there are laws and ordinances about fighting in public places.

So yeah, maybe minors can fight in the privacy of their homes, but I'm pretty sure there's county law about fighting on the streets. Same way you can be naked in your house, but public nudity is prohibited.

It's not hypothetical, there are many case laws about this, you can google them.

A police officer may determine that it is "disorderly conduct" or "they are blocking a street" and stop the fight, but if the fight does not interfere with the public the police have no obligation to get involved.

Yes, disorderly conduct is the charge I was thinking of. And I don't think a bunch of teenagers fighting in the street as was the case here, especially since the police received calls about the street violence as it was unfolding, would be that hard to prove.

In Maryland I think it might also qualify under the charge of "affray" a common law offense of "the fighting of two or more persons in some public place to the terror of the people."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A WJ parent took their kid to the police station and reported it as an assault.

Police will need to do an investigation to determine if it was an assault or a fight.

You will need to wait for facts.

A police report is not facts, it is a report written when people are interviewed. People can lie in the interview.
A police investigation is usually based on facts (though something they are wrong too).

Kid comes home beaten up and he told his parents, "I was assaulted", it might be the truth or he lied because he didn't want to admit he was in a fight (and lost).

? Assault is assault regardless of whether it was in the middle of several people fighting or not. If you're hit by someone, it's assault. You can call police and press charges. They will determine if you also threw punches, and whether you started it, or whether you exercised reasonable self-defence.

That is not how the laws are written.

Fighting is actually legal. You have the legal right to fight someone else if you choose. If you choose to be in a fight you can't claim assault.

You might be able to argue once somebody is on the ground and being kicked the fight has now turned into an assault.

Just let your children know, if they agree to be in a fight, they can't turn around after they lose a fight and claim assault.

LOL WHAT?

NP - I'm not sure why you're laughing, the PP is right. If groups of students met up to fight, there's noting illegal about that (though it's idiotic). It's not at all clear that is what happened here, though.

What evidence of this agreement to fight would exist to substantiate that both parties were mutually agreeing to a fight? It's not like we have a written contract to go off of.

And further more, how can minors who can't consent to so many things be capable of committing to an agreement of engaging in violent activity with one another?
That is not how the laws are written.

That is what the police will need to do in their investigation. Nobody is saying it was a fight, what was said is that we need to wait until the police investigation is complete to determine if it was a fight vs an assault.

Minors can consent to sex (with each other) and they can consent to fights.

It is how the laws are written.

To continue with your hypothetical, even IF they did both agree to the fight, I'm pretty sure there are laws and ordinances about fighting in public places.

So yeah, maybe minors can fight in the privacy of their homes, but I'm pretty sure there's county law about fighting on the streets. Same way you can be naked in your house, but public nudity is prohibited.

It's not hypothetical, there are many case laws about this, you can google them.

A police officer may determine that it is "disorderly conduct" or "they are blocking a street" and stop the fight, but if the fight does not interfere with the public the police have no obligation to get involved.

Yes, disorderly conduct is the charge I was thinking of. And I don't think a bunch of teenagers fighting in the street as was the case here, especially since the police received calls about the street violence as it was unfolding, would be that hard to prove.

I am pretty sure that the investigation is going to result in some BCC students being charged with assault - at least based on what I've read and been told - and they should be!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A WJ parent took their kid to the police station and reported it as an assault.

Police will need to do an investigation to determine if it was an assault or a fight.

You will need to wait for facts.

A police report is not facts, it is a report written when people are interviewed. People can lie in the interview.
A police investigation is usually based on facts (though something they are wrong too).

Kid comes home beaten up and he told his parents, "I was assaulted", it might be the truth or he lied because he didn't want to admit he was in a fight (and lost).

? Assault is assault regardless of whether it was in the middle of several people fighting or not. If you're hit by someone, it's assault. You can call police and press charges. They will determine if you also threw punches, and whether you started it, or whether you exercised reasonable self-defence.

That is not how the laws are written.

Fighting is actually legal. You have the legal right to fight someone else if you choose. If you choose to be in a fight you can't claim assault.

You might be able to argue once somebody is on the ground and being kicked the fight has now turned into an assault.

Just let your children know, if they agree to be in a fight, they can't turn around after they lose a fight and claim assault.

LOL WHAT?

NP - I'm not sure why you're laughing, the PP is right. If groups of students met up to fight, there's noting illegal about that (though it's idiotic). It's not at all clear that is what happened here, though.

What evidence of this agreement to fight would exist to substantiate that both parties were mutually agreeing to a fight? It's not like we have a written contract to go off of.

And further more, how can minors who can't consent to so many things be capable of committing to an agreement of engaging in violent activity with one another?
That is not how the laws are written.

That is what the police will need to do in their investigation. Nobody is saying it was a fight, what was said is that we need to wait until the police investigation is complete to determine if it was a fight vs an assault.

Minors can consent to sex (with each other) and they can consent to fights.

It is how the laws are written.

To continue with your hypothetical, even IF they did both agree to the fight, I'm pretty sure there are laws and ordinances about fighting in public places.

So yeah, maybe minors can fight in the privacy of their homes, but I'm pretty sure there's county law about fighting on the streets. Same way you can be naked in your house, but public nudity is prohibited.

It's not hypothetical, there are many case laws about this, you can google them.

A police officer may determine that it is "disorderly conduct" or "they are blocking a street" and stop the fight, but if the fight does not interfere with the public the police have no obligation to get involved.

Yes, disorderly conduct is the charge I was thinking of. And I don't think a bunch of teenagers fighting in the street as was the case here, especially since the police received calls about the street violence as it was unfolding, would be that hard to prove.

It will be easy to prove disorderly conduct. But assault might be harder. Each person would have to prove they tried to retreat since maryland does not have a stand your ground law they have "duty to retreat".

Are you saying the kid on the ground who was being kicked in the head had a duty to retreat?