Jump to content

Should This Guy Be Arrested?


Clyde
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 33
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Nope

 

 

As long as Farrakhan and others can continue to speak of violence and nothing is done to them as they incite riots etc. then this guy is the least of anyone's worries.

 

Gotcha. Let's remove the others.

 

In general, is what this guy said enough to warrant an arrest? Can one go public with a video saying that if you come to our town you're going to die?

 

Or does that fall under Freedom of Speech?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm guessing this falls under the same thing as Farkakan. But it seems awfully dangerous . At the very least LE should make him a person of interest.

 

That's an interesting point. I'd have to back and hear what the minister said exactly but I do remember legal folks saying that he qualified it. Can't remember what he qualified it with though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's an interesting point. I'd have to back and hear what the minister said exactly but I do remember legal folks saying that he qualified it. Can't remember what he qualified it with though.

 

I don't have the exact quote but he called for 10 thousand black men to committ acts of violence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have the exact quote but he called for 10 thousand black men to committ acts of violence.

 

Just read it. Said "If they(govt/police) continue to kill us then we should kill them....." That's a summary but the "if's" are used correctly.

 

So from a legal standpoint (assuming that's the legal reason he wasn't charged) is that the same as what this man is saying?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope

 

 

As long as Farrakhan and others can continue to speak of violence and nothing is done to them as they incite riots etc. then this guy is the least of anyone's worries.

I think they should help the human race by locking both of those fools up in a jail cell together. Good riddance!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just read it. Said "If they(govt/police) continue to kill us then we should kill them....." That's a summary but the "if's" are used correctly.

 

So from a legal standpoint (assuming that's the legal reason he wasn't charged) is that the same as what this man is saying?

 

Better legal minds than me will chime in I'm sure. There are hundreds of hate groups online who post similar messages and sometimes worse messages. I don't know if any have been punished.

 

I think it all comes down to specifics , but I could be wrong. For example if I point out a specific event . "Hey everyone there is a rally in the square let's go down and pelt them with rocks". The more vague and more general the group he is talking about I think he may be protected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Farrakhan's recent rant

 

"Ten thousand fearless men, who say, Death is sweeter than continued life under tyranny. Death is sweeter than to continue to live and bury our children, while the white folks give the killer a hamburger. Death is sweeter than watching us slaughter each other to the joy of a 400 year old enemy. … retaliation is prescribed in matters of the slain. Retaliation is a prescription from God to calm the breasts of those whose children have been slain. So if the federal government will not intercede in our affairs, then we must rise up and kill those who kill us. Stalk them and kill them and let them feel the pain of death that we are feeling."

 

 

Both sides sure have their share of idiots who just can't chill out and consider peace as an option and solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Better legal minds than me will chime in I'm sure. There are hundreds of hate groups online who post similar messages and sometimes worse messages. I don't know if any have been punished.

 

I think it all comes down to specifics , but I could be wrong. For example if I point out a specific event . "Hey everyone there is a rally in the square let's go down and pelt them with rocks". The more vague and more general the group he is talking about I think he may be protected.

 

As I always say the next case I try will be my first so...

 

Let's take the following 3 and see which ones, if any, should result in a charge.

 

 

1. If you try to hurt my child I will kill you.

 

2. Kill all white people.

 

3. If you and your black friends come to our town the last sound you hear will be this gun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I always say the next case I try will be my first so...

 

Let's take the following 3 and see which ones, if any, should result in a charge.

 

 

1. If you try to hurt my child I will kill you.

 

2. Kill all white people.

 

3. If you and your black friends come to our town the last sound you hear will be this gun.

 

How you phrased each I don't think any of the three should.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For sake of the thread and debate, be a little more verbose as to why or why not.

 

There's a Supreme Court case covering this type of scenario and it lays out the Clear and Present Danger elements pretty well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

 

IMO, and I am not qualified really to say that this is the way it would roll, I don't think that he can be charged with anything. He is in the hypothetical. Now, if someone like that comes to town, and that person winds up dead, then I know who will be named on the warrant first. And...I know that this will go towards motive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using the site you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Policies.