I wouldn't charge him. Lot's of emotions going on and the riots were going to happen with him or without him.

Charging this guy with a crime is the last thing the city of Ferguson needs. There is already racial divide; this will only fuel the fire even more.

Charging this guy with a crime is the last thing the city of Ferguson needs. There is already racial divide; this will only fuel the fire even more.

 

Strictly Devil's Advocate here but should we allow the threat of bad behavior or other problems within in a community dictate when a person is or isn't charged with a crime?

 

I don't know for sure where I fall on this. If he's not criminally charged I can certainly see a case being made for the business owners that lost everything filing civil actions against him. AS has been pointed out repeatedly by legal experts on the networks the level of proof to determine culpability there is much lower then in the criminal courts.

I don't know for sure where I fall on this. If he's not criminally charged I can certainly see a case being made for the business owners that lost everything filing civil actions against him.

 

What would they get out of that?

What would they get out of that?

 

Who knows.

Strictly Devil's Advocate here but should we allow the threat of bad behavior or other problems within in a community dictate when a person is or isn't charged with a crime?

 

I don't know for sure where I fall on this. If he's not criminally charged I can certainly see a case being made for the business owners that lost everything filing civil actions against him. AS has been pointed out repeatedly by legal experts on the networks the level of proof to determine culpability there is much lower then in the criminal courts.

 

 

It's ludicrous to think that this one man's actions caused the riots that night. Ferguson was a powder keg ready to explode once that announcement not to indict was made. It's not like he was on a bullhorn calling everyone out of their homes to take action. The people were already there, already mad, and already set to riot.

 

I don't have the handbook on when to charge people with crimes and when not to, however, under the circumstances you better have a locked up tight/throw away the key case to go after this man. It is not going to sit well with the black community in Ferguson that you let a white cop walk for killing a black man and turn around and arrest someone from the black man's family instead. Fuel for the fire.

I can see why he would be charged. I wouldn't be upset if he was charged. I don't think it is wise or in anyone's best interests to charge him.

It's ludicrous to think that this one man's actions caused the riots that night. Ferguson was a powder keg ready to explode once that announcement not to indict was made. It's not like he was on a bullhorn calling everyone out of their homes to take action. The people were already there, already mad, and already set to riot.

 

I don't have the handbook on when to charge people with crimes and when not to, however, under the circumstances you better have a locked up tight/throw away the key case to go after this man. It is not going to sit well with the black community in Ferguson that you let a white cop walk for killing a black man and turn around and arrest someone from the black man's family instead. Fuel for the fire.

 

I don't necessarily disagree but if the primary consideration in whether to charge him or not is potential reaction from the community haven't we allowed mob justice to rule? Maybe the legal requirements are not there to charge the man, fine so be it, but the DA should then stand up and explain why. If he doesn't then then the perception IMVHO is that he's given in to the mob.

 

I don't care how bad a situation is, if a community allows a potential bad reaction to determine when or if to charge someone with a crime (if there are legitimate reasons within the law for bringing charges) then the rule of law, which we pride ourselves on, has taken a huge hit and we're one step closer to anarchy.

Are the words enough? How does the state prove his words caused people to take action?

 

Words may not be enough, but the fact that he was screaming, 'burn this (expletive)down' and the rioters proceeded to burn down multiple buildings is not a coincidence. I believe the burning of buildings was planned if no indictment happened. His words were too specific to what happened. He should probably be charged, but will not be because it would be a PR nightmare.

Edited December 3, 201411 yr by PurplePride92
Rule 8

Anyone that riots and/or encourages others to riot should be prosecuted the full extent of the law.

 

Sounds like terrorism to me.

What would they get out of that?

 

Nothing, the guy cant even afford a belt to keep his pants up.

I can see why he would be charged. I wouldn't be upset if he was charged. I don't think it is wise or in anyone's best interests to charge him.

 

I agree, this guy will eventually do something to get in trouble anyway.

Charging this guy with a crime is the last thing the city of Ferguson needs. There is already racial divide; this will only fuel the fire even more.

 

So you are saying this guy is fee to commit crimes with no consequences?

So you are saying this guy is fee to commit crimes with no consequences?

 

Most will be shocked to hear this from me but.

 

He didnt commit any crime, if those fools were dumb enough to go do something like that because a guy said it, then they are the ones who should go to jail.

So you are saying this guy is fee to commit crimes with no consequences?

 

That decision is made every day. There's a fine balancing act being done right now in Ferguson.