Should The Stepfather Be Charged With Inciting a Riot?

[GNBRETT]

Police consider charges against Michael Brown's stepdad

 

[dadofthree]

Yes, but I bet it will never happen.

 

[Blanca BusaLess]

Yes. If it can be shown that he should be than it should happen. I don't accept the excuse as it was emotional.
Long trial later and he's convicted any guess on how big the riot will be then?

 

[Lycan6]

I don't care about him and I don't think he should be charged. I do think that anyone that is seen on video looting should be though. But then again what's the penalty for inciting a riot? Is it a misdemeanor, felony?

 

[GEARJAMMER]

I vote yes and possibly charges 4 pants 2 low and falling off.

 

[mysql]

I love how much they care for their innocent son, so much so that neither parent allowed him to live with them.

 

[SS14PSI]

I don't care about him and I don't think he should be charged.

Shocking!

 

[RedBusarider]

Yes. If it can be shown that he should be than it should happen. I don't accept the excuse as it was emotional.
Long trial later and he's convicted any guess on how big the riot will be then?

Yup Talk about adding fuel to the fire!

I'm not sure what good that would do. It's not like they can hold him accountable and make him pay for all the damage done.
And how much is it going to cost the city to bring him to trial? What a circus that would be for the media.

I'm pretty sure they would argue - Free Speech. And bring in Experts to say he was not thinking right which is normal under those conditions.

If someone says to someone else, hay shoot that guy over there - and they do - is the person that told them to going to be charged?
Probably not normally.

I think the city (or whoever) made a big mistake by announcing there decision at night -
I hope they think this over for a long time and make sure whatever they decide is the right decision.
I'm glad I don't have to make that decision.
Because I'm undecided - I didn't vote. I don't have enough info - so who am I to judge? And if I did would it really matter?

 

[Dscahill]

I don't care about him and I don't think he should be charged. I do think that anyone that is seen on video looting should be though. But then again what's the penalty for inciting a riot? Is it a misdemeanor, felony?

Nothing says you support Michael Brown like looting a Payless Shoes.

-D

 

[Lycan6]

Shocking!

Yep. About as shocking that someone would make a comment about my opinion on it.

 

[Lycan6]

Nothing says you support Michael Brown like looting a Payless Shoes. -D

I really do wish people would stop saying that looters had anything to do with supporting MB or anything positive. They were there for other reasons. The people that care about situation were protesting but not destroying anyone's property.

Give it a break.

 

[IG.]

Although I voted YES, I think that all the looting would happen anyway and to the same extent, so in that respect his words didn't make much of a difference.

What I really wished for that most business owners took to arms and defended their businesses.

Absence of self defense in most part is an interesting observation, but really troubling illustration of how general population will react to future riots, acts of mass violence, etc. - regardless of what caused them. Most of the population will be sitting in their homes, praying and hoping the bad guys won't touch them.

Just think about it - moving on from destroying businesses and on to destroying homes is just one tiny decision on part of the bad guys. General population and especially in big cities, completely unprepared mentally and materially in big part thanks to anti gun laws, to withstand such attacks will suffer greatly. That would be a real wake up call.

What can I say? Humans. Good for the gun industry, though.

 

[GNBRETT]

well, when the entire crowd is watching the parents and waiting for their reaction the step father has a responsibility to NOT incite violence. thats exactly what he did. do you think anyone wud have given a rats ass if some crack-head in the crowd said "burn this ***** down'? no they wud not have.

they had plenty of time to prepare for this and they knew dam well there was a good chance the officer wud NOT be indicted. it was simply a way for them to vent and incite others to vent with them! that is ILLEGAL!

so the store owners who have families to support are not victims of his inciting a crowd the burn cars, police cars and businesses down? what about the ppl cars that got burned down who have to go to work the following day or bring their kids to school? they are not victims of this? the entire f-en world was watching this on TV. he knew dam well that everyone was watching and that everyone wud be waiting for his reaction.

in my almost 20 years in LE I can't think of a better example of someone who shud be arrested for inciting a riot. you are NOT absolved from the law cause you disagree with the grand jury.

give it a break? really? the looters had nothing to do with supporting MB? so if the officer was indicted they wud have still burned down the city? yea ok. it doesn't matter what they were there for. the step father incited them to burn chit down. that is the issue here and he is 100% guilty of such!

I really do wish people would stop saying that looters had anything to do with supporting MB or anything positive. They were there for other reasons. The people that care about situation were protesting but not destroying anyone's property.

Give it a break.

 

[GNBRETT]

Although I voted YES, I think that all the looting would happen anyway and to the same magnitude, so in that respect his words didn't make much of a difference.

your guessing. you have no idea if that is true or not. so does that mean people can go rob banks too cause eventually a bank will be robed anyway so it wudnt make much of a difference. thats not how the law works! if you commit a crime and violate a statute you will be charged with it.

its possible that some looting wud hav takn place as well but its also very possibly and HIGHLY likely that the burning of cars, buildings etc.. was incited by the step father. anytime a crowd of ppl get together cause they pissed off about something there is chance violence will occur.

but that doesn't mean some jackass shud stand on top of a car and incite others to burn chit down. especially someone who the crowd is looking at for a reaction.

 

[IG.]

I admit that maybe you are right. I was lucky to have never experienced anything like this. We will never know for sure, but he did what he did and I agree it had the potential to cause more damage, hence the law makes it illegal.

 

[GNBRETT]

bottom line is ppl either believe in the system or they don't. we have to let juries decide and respect their decision. it does NOT mean we have to agree with them. I didn't agree with OJ nor did I with Casey Anothony that murdering biitch! but, it doesn't give ppl the right to incite others to destroy others property. others that had absolutely nothing to do with anything!

go on TV, white a book, do a movie whatever! but encourage others to riot and burn chit down and as a result buildings and cars were jus that burned down then you have committed a serious crime.

that is a Class A Felony in MO and it shud be.

 

[Lycan6]

Yes. Give it a break. People that were looting were going to do that because they wanted free chid. Not because it supported anything positive. If you can't see that or acknowledge that then so be it. I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

 

[Lycan6]

GNBRETT please show me one post on this topic where anyone has said the looters were right in their actions or that they had a right to do it or that they did it to support MB.

 

[GNBRETT]

Yes. Give it a break. People that were looting were going to do that because they wanted free chid. Not because it supported anything positive. If you can't see that or acknowledge that then so be it. I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

GNBRETT please show me one post on this topic where anyone has said the looters were right in their actions or that they had a right to do it or that they did it to support MB.

so because ppl were looting that means its ok to incite a riot to burn the place down cause ppl were gonna loot anyway? thats ur thought process?

no one cares what they support or not or if they want to hang themselves from a bridge for that matter. what ppl care about is their businesses and vehicles being burned to the ground which has nothing to do with looting.

thats just destroying cause their animals! and that was greatly in part due to the step father encouraging them to do so. what is it ur not getting?

this isn't about who looted what or if it was wrong or not. common sense can tell u it was wrong. I'm not sure where u get the notion anyone supports looting. try to stay on point here....

 

[Lycan6]

so because ppl were looting that means its ok to incite a riot to burn the place down cause ppl were gonna loot anyway? thats ur thought process? no one cares what they support or not or if they want to hang themselves from a bridge for that matter. what ppl care about is their businesses and vehicles being burned to the ground which has nothing to do with looting. thats just destroying cause their animals! and that was greatly in part due to the step father encouraging them to do so. what is it ur not getting? this isn't about who looted what or if it was wrong or not. common sense can tell u it was wrong. I'm not sure where u get the notion anyone supports looting. try to stay on point here....

Again my point is tell me where anyone said it was right or okay.