As soon as I saw the video, I thought that he was guilty of inciting a riot. Now I wonder what "inciting" means in the eyes of the law. People were already poised to riot, waiting for an excuse. Did his words actually cause them to begin, or had the rioting already start?

Did he start the fire, or add fuel to it?

 

I can't help but think that if the family had pleaded for peace, if that would have minimized some of the violence.

 

I also wonder what part the media played in making the rioting much worse than it would be. Constant news coverage days before warning about rioting, only stirs the pot for those needing an excuse to loot and rob.

It's not like he was on a bullhorn calling everyone out of their homes to take action.

 

In the video he's heard asking for a microphone, I don't know if he ever got one. I didn't see him with one, but he was asking for one.

The husband of Lesley McSpadden could be charged for fanning the flames that led to the Nov. 24 mayhem in the streets of Ferguson. Head said blaming him for the chaos 'goes way too far and is as wrong as the decision itself.'

 

Michael Brown's stepdad apologizes for Ferguson comments - NY Daily News

What is bad is the media had him on saying they wanted peace and no law breaking. Well just as everything else goes with this incident his true colors were shown that he is a liar just like some others were shown to be. Also he is too old to be going around with his pants down around his knees in my opinion.

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

Sir Charles came down hard on rioters, but he said , no, the man shouldn't be charged.

They would have to identify a group of people that were peacefully protesting, heard him yell, THEN burned everything down. Impossible to do.

Kentucky Revised Statute

 

525.040 Inciting to riot.

(1) A person is guilty of inciting to riot when he incites or urges five (5) or more

persons to create or engage in a riot.

(2) Inciting to riot is a Class A misdemeanor.

 

I put Kentucky's law in there just because I'm somewhat familiar with it and knew where to find it. Not sure how much it varies from state to state

Interesting that inciting to riot is only a misdemeanor. Why isn't it a felony? Probably because lawmakers recognized that making this a felony could spur prosecutors to use the law as a form of political retribution.

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.

 

Exactly. It certainly doesn't hesp with the communities healing process.

There was a KKK case that the Supreme Court ruled on that was similar to this Free Speech issue. I can't remember the holding. I will get it tomorrow.

 

Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Here you go.

Three elements to this:

1. Intent of message

2. Imminence. How quickly is the message going to be acted on

3. Likelihood.

 

I don't know when or where he gave his speech. You can say let's riot on TV and if the riots happen 2 days later...you can't be arrested for that.

Brandenburg v. Ohio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Here you go.

Three elements to this:

1. Intent of message

2. Imminence. How quickly is the message going to be acted on

3. Likelihood.

 

I don't know when or where he gave his speech. You can say let's riot on TV and if the riots happen 2 days later...you can't be arrested for that.

 

In this case they happened within minutes, but they may have happened any way.

Also it's important to not confuse Michael Brown's Father for his Mom's (boyfriend/fiance/husband)

 

Brown's father while upset has called for peace every time I've seen him speak.

 

Mom and Step-dad have been the ones going the other way.

They are the ones that attacked Michael Brown's Grandma demanding money from shirts she was selling to pay for expenses.

They are the one's who allegedly kicked Brown out years ago to be raised by his grandma.

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.

 

I think there is a Constitutional issue to be considered as well. I know the Supreme Court is considering a case riright now regrading hate speech, and whether saying things that people MAY find extremely offensive falls outside the Constitutional right. I would consider this to be very similar.

I think there is a Constitutional issue to be considered as well. I know the Supreme Court is considering a case riright now regrading hate speech, and whether saying things that people MAY find extremely offensive falls outside the Constitutional right. I would consider this to be very similar.

 

Is Hate Speech and Inciting a Riot the same thing?

Is Hate Speech and Inciting a Riot the same thing?

No.

But both are subjective.