This knucklehead can look forward to additional crimes like Assault (the degree depends on the bicyclist's injuries) and Reckless Endangerment.

Want to get drunk and risk your life on a bike? Great, go for it! Just do it on your own property and don't put others at risk. Better yet, incompetent tough guy / Harley owner, get a revolver and play Russian Roulette in your shower. That sounds like a win-win for society.

Yes, when someone reaches a black belt they must register as a weapon. Thank you for informing the public. In that same vein, here are some other things I discovered on the internet that are totally true:

- If you ask a drug dealer if he is a cop, he has to tell you;
- Nigerian princes will pay you good money to briefly hold some of their inheritances; and
- If you make a silly face, your face will freeze in that pose forever.

Attempted Riot may be a stretch, it depends on the facts. Here is the link to the underlying crime (ORS 166.015): http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/166.html

Here are the elements of the underlying crime: "A person commits the crime of riot if while participating with five or more other persons the person engages in tumultuous and violent conduct and thereby intentionally or recklessly creates a grave risk of causing public alarm."

I haven't seen the video but based on the article's description the kids' activities seem to satisfy every element except for "violent conduct". Didn't see a mention of violence. Since every element must be satisfied, without violent conduct there is no Attempted Riot. Perhaps there's more to the story than this piece discusses.

Love how people just downvote because they want the kids to burn, not because people have anything to contribute analytically to a simple and seemingly sincere question.

I wasn't predisposed to believing they were god-sent but since you said they were, I believe it.

You have no idea how Tasers work, their practical limitations or how officers deploy them. Read up, then try penning condescending, snarky comments. They won't sound as side-splittingly hilarious when you have basic facts. They'll just sound ignorant.

Signed,
Someone with Taser experience

KATU,

Thank you for explaining to readers a bit about the legal standards of proof in criminal versus civil cases. That said, a couple times you referred to someone being "guilty" in a civil case. That's not possible. Guilt is found only in criminal cases. One can be liable for a civil claim but never guilty of it.

Bad news: you do live in "that kind of country". The feds already intercept and evaluate domestic and international communications. It's warrantless and, no, it isn't a conspiracy.

In a nutshell the NSA was caught redhanded years ago by Mark Klein, an AT&T engineer who discovered NSA hardware on AT&T's data backbone that allows NSA to receive pure AT&T customer communication. Other AT&T-like companies allow NSA to obtain communications data from their customers using similar hardware.

NSA has amped it up since then. The saddest part is that next to nobody seems to care.

Enjoy some brave new world reading:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsada... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A https://www.eff.org/issues/nsa-spying http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/us/16nsa.html?p... http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-1... http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/nsa-whis...

Movie shows 87938409798743 people being shot / maimed: American parent lets children watch.

Movie shows breasts or a butt or, madre de dios, genitals: Stop corrupting my children!

I did not say he would be convicted -- just that the City Code applies, which it most certainly does. However, he very well might win on a First Amendment political speech ground.

I wish I could offer a primer on the arguments and issues but I don't have the time to write it and it would be so long only a handful of people would read it.

That said, here's the most applicable case I've seen (note: I only spent a couple minutes on research, so salt grain and whatnot) that frames the issues and helps you make the argument that this guy's exposed junk in this setting is protected speech: City of Portland v. Gatewood, 76 Or. App. 74, from 1985. I wish I could give you a free online site to read it but I don't know of one with cases that far back. Try google or, if you're really motivated, any law library in Oregon will have it.

As a side point, saying "explain it to us dullards" is unhelpful strawman rhetoric. Nobody was called a dullard and I was not condescending in the least. I was merely offering information which, based on my professional experience and abilities, I have knowledge of. You are free to disregard it but please don't pretend I was being insulting or rude. I was, and am, simply helping people correctly understand the applicable law.

Civility is rare and appreciated, if not the least because of its rarity.

Your first comment centered around the ethics. This comment concerns the law, and it makes me wonder if you're not confusing the two.

Just because something is illegal does not make it unethical. It may be illegal to whistle on Sundays, but it's not unethical.

Conversely, just because something is legal does not make it ethical. It's legal to call someone a racist slur, but it's not ethical.

Weed is illegal. So what? People who don't use turn signals cause far more potential harm to others than someone's act of pot smoking.

Now, if you argue that the team depends on the athletes to take utmost care of themselves, or that the school provides benefits in exchange for the player adhering to the rules the players agreed to follow, etc., then you may be onto something.

But doing something illegal is not intrinsically wrong by virtue of it being illegal. Legislatures are not the highest source of ethics.