CC Minutes - 08/14/06 Work Session

Home Browse Search

ordinance to a public hearing and hoped the council would consider banning instead of regulating extreme fighting. He expressed interest in having the city attorney research whether and how other communities regulated the activity and suggested that the ordinance language state “. . .for which no rules have been established by a governmental body.” Mr. Poling favored moving the ordinance to a public hearing in order to hear both sides of the issue. He said there were two discussions: one a legal discussion of the ordinance and the other a philosophical one. He heard comments that extreme fighting was desensitizing youth to violence and brutality. In terms of regulating people watching the fighting, he pointed out that it could be viewed on television. He said if the City passed an ordinance that allowed extreme fighting, it should be very careful in developing regulations, which should primarily be to safeguard against serious physical injuries. Ms. Taylor supported a public hearing and favored banning the sport, not regulating it. She wanted to learn more about the issue. Ms. Bettman stated she was in favor of a public hearing on the ordinance. She did not understand how a person who assaulted someone on the street and caused serious injury or death could be charged with a crime while a participant in cage fighting who caused an opponent to suffer serious injury or death would not be charged. She asked if the fact that fight participants were both there by consent was what made the difference. Mr. Lidz said he believed it was the consent factor but would research the question. He noted that even signing a waiver would not protect against prosecution as that was at the discretion of the district attorney, but participants might sign a waiver of rights to sue the other party for personal injury. Ms. Bettman asked if the City would have any liability if it chose to regulate instead of banning fighting and something occurred that fell outside of the regulations. Mr. Lidz said the City could not be sued for not regulating enough; the only risk would be if the City adopted regulations that it did not enforce. Ms. Bettman emphasized the need to understand the resource implications of enforcement if the council chose to regulate instead of ban because of the liability associated with failure to enforce. Mr. Lidz said there were many factors that would influence whether the City could be sued for failure to enforce regulations and pointed out that the Police Department had substantial discretion about when to enforce a law. Ms. Solomon asserted that it was not possible to regulate stupidity. She said that if the City banned extreme fighting it would only move to another community. She said if the council was concerned about youth and people’s safety it should address it by discouraging people from watching and participating in fighting. She liked Ms. Ortiz’s suggestion to require sponsors to carry insurance. She noted there were other forms of violence to which children were exposed, such as violent video games, and it was not possible to regulate all types of violence. Mr. Papé indicated he was in favor of a public hearing but not certain he would support the ordinance in its current form. He was concerned that charging violators of a ban with a Class A misdemeanor was severe for a first offense and asked whether the same penalty would be imposed on people involved in a street or bar fight. Mr. Lidz said he did not think that a street fight would be subject to the ordinance and youth under 18 did not get convicted of misdemeanors. He said there was always prosecutorial discretion on charges. MINUTES—Eugene City Council August 14, 2006 Page 10 Work Session