• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Michael Brown's Step father be prosecuted?

Should Michael Brown's Step Father be prosecuted


  • Total voters
    40

joko104

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2009
Messages
65,981
Reaction score
23,408
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
In front of a large crowd of protestors, Michael Brown's stepfather on a platform started shouting "BURN IT DOWN! BURN IT DOWN!" to a larger crowd in a situation were arson was not only a possibility, but then in fact did happen.

[video]http://blog.honest.com/5-natural-ways-to-treat-infant-eczema/#[/video]

Should he be prosecuted?
 
Last edited:
In front of a large crowd of protestors, Michael Brown's stepfather on a platform started shouting "BURN IT DOWN! BURN IT DOWN!" to a larger crowd in a situation were arson was not only a possibility, but then in fact did happen.

[video]http://blog.honest.com/5-natural-ways-to-treat-infant-eczema/#[/video]

Should he be prosecuted?

Nah. While he may have said "Burn this bitch down" at the end of the day, the people who committed arson are responsible for their actions. You may condemn what he said, but the people who committed arson still had a choice as to whether or not they would go through with the act. They have ears, eyes, and minds of their own.
 
Nah. While he may have said "Burn this bitch down" at the end of the day, the people who committed arson are responsible for their actions. You may condemn what he said, but the people who committed arson still had a choice as to whether or not they would go through with the act. They have ears, eyes, and minds of their own.

I agree. Plus, if the guy had any kind of relationship with his stepson, he may have been overly emotional as most fathers would be. I say leave the dude alone.
 
In front of a large crowd of protestors, Michael Brown's stepfather on a platform started shouting "BURN IT DOWN! BURN IT DOWN!" to a larger crowd in a situation were arson was not only a possibility, but then in fact did happen.

[video]http://blog.honest.com/5-natural-ways-to-treat-infant-eczema/#[/video]

Should he be prosecuted?

Other than Obama deciding to press Federal charges, I could think of no better way to add fuel to the fire then prosecuting his dad. Though it's interesting, because a lot of the arguments that have been made about the Wilson grand jury could be the same. "Let it be up to a grand jury to decide". A sick twisted part of me would prefer that. But the better part of me says no way, in a olive branch sort of thing. Plus, what has he been doing since then to calm things down? If he is still saying this stuff, then that might warrant further action.
 
I still blame Obama.
 
Nah. While he may have said "Burn this bitch down" at the end of the day, the people who committed arson are responsible for their actions. You may condemn what he said, but the people who committed arson still had a choice as to whether or not they would go through with the act. They have ears, eyes, and minds of their own.
Well ... apparently it is being investigated.

The only thing they got wrong so far is that he was Brown's stepfather.


Police asking: Did Michael Brown's stepfather intend to spark riots?

Police looking at words from Michael Brown's stepfather - CNN.com
 
Other than Obama deciding to press Federal charges, I could think of no better way to add fuel to the fire then prosecuting his dad. Though it's interesting, because a lot of the arguments that have been made about the Wilson grand jury could be the same. "Let it be up to a grand jury to decide". A sick twisted part of me would prefer that. But the better part of me says no way, in a olive branch sort of thing. Plus, what has he been doing since then to calm things down? If he is still saying this stuff, then that might warrant further action.

It may be an easy olive branch to offer since it wasn't your entire life's work in your business burned down leading to your financial ruin.

I am interested to see if anyone will say he should be arrested and put on trial so a jury should decide - like so many claim should have been done with Wilson.

It is an interesting question, though. In a way, it is the Charles Manson issue. If you don't commit the crime, but tell others to do it and they do, are you part of it?
 
I don't think he should be prosecuted, but I think that all the people who gave false eyewitness statements should be prosecuted. There was one that said that they were eyewitness to Brown laying on his stomach, and Wilson firing into his back several times. That hindered .. well you can't really say prosecution, because he wasn't on trial yet. The false statements certainly hindered a proper Grand Jury proceeding.
 
There was one that said that they were eyewitness to Brown laying on his stomach, and Wilson firing into his back several times. That hindered .. well you can't really say prosecution, because he wasn't on trial yet.

If that was a sworn statement to the grand jury that absolutely should be prosecuted as felony perjury.

A real problem in the legal system is essentially NO ONE is prosecuted for perjury even if absolutely certain. May call courts "the liars forum" as a result. Equally, police officers proven to write a false report should be prosecuted.
 
I guessed most would answer "no" - under the idea of not escalating it. But is that really a valid reason? What if the video showed immediately after he shouted that the mob ran over and burned down someone's business. Would that make a difference? Should decisions on prosecutions be made upon how it will affect protests?
 
It may be an easy olive branch to offer since it wasn't your entire life's work in your business burned down leading to your financial ruin.

I am interested to see if anyone will say he should be arrested and put on trial so a jury should decide - like so many claim should have been done with Wilson.

It is an interesting question, though. In a way, it is the Charles Manson issue. If you don't commit the crime, but tell others to do it and they do, are you part of it?

The difference is that the Manson "family" committed their crimes because of Charles Manson, what happened in Furguson would have happened regardless of anything the stepdad said.
 
Nah. While he may have said "Burn this bitch down" at the end of the day, the people who committed arson are responsible for their actions. You may condemn what he said, but the people who committed arson still had a choice as to whether or not they would go through with the act. They have ears, eyes, and minds of their own.

If he helped incite a riot, then he certainly should be prosecuted for it. I doubt they will do it though. We all know people that have lost kids or step kids, as a parent its the worst thing that can happen to you. However, I don't know anyone that has lost a kid and then took that as an opportunity to incite a violent riot.
 
The difference is that the Manson "family" committed their crimes because of Charles Manson, what happened in Furguson would have happened regardless of anything the stepdad said.

I don't know if that matters from a legal perspective though. If a guy jumps out the window of a high rise and you shoot him before he hits the ground, you will be charged with murder despite the fact that guy would have died anyway a second later when he hit the ground. I am not sure how this would be any different. Most likely there would have been a violent riot anyway, but his step dad did take that as an opportunity to incite violence from a crowd.
 
I don't know if that matters from a legal perspective though. If a guy jumps out the window of a high rise and you shoot him before he hits the ground, you will be charged with murder despite the fact that guy would have died anyway a second later when he hit the ground. I am not sure how this would be any different. Most likely there would have been a violent riot anyway, but his step dad did take that as an opportunity to incite violence from a crowd.

But in that case, you actually literally did cause the death of the person (presuming that it could be proven that the gun shot caused the death prior to him hitting the ground). In this case, the riots were not caused by anything he said. Don't get me wrong, I don't like defending the guy. I think his statement was a complete douchebag thing to say, but you'd have to prove that his words were what caused the riots and I don't think you could.
 
My guess is the DA/police will decide not to prosecute specifically fearing the effects if they do. But that isn't really legally valid, is it? Or is it?

I suppose it could be argued that no one should be prosecuted to appease others, but maybe not prosecuting to avoid greater harm is a proper decision for "The state" to make - since it is the state/government and not victims who are prosecuting.

Yes, I can understand the family's anger (in a way and in a way not), but I also certainly can understand the anger of the owner of the burned business and the anger of all their employees who now can't pay their rent, car payment or buy groceries.

So... if the stepdad had started raging "FIRE THE DA! PROSECUTE THE DA! HAVE ANOTHER GRAND JURY HEAR IT! SEND IT TO ANOTHER COUNTY TO DECIDE! REPLACE THE MAYOR!!" etc - for sure his calling for that action would be legal - even if it then took a bad turn into a riot. But BURN THE BITCH DOWN! is problematical since was specific in a specific setting and arson (a terrible, terrible crime) was done on a vast scale.

Would it have happened anyway or to that extent if his rage had been towards political opposition, "march on the courthouse!" or some other furious outburst?
 
Last edited:
But in that case, you actually literally did cause the death of the person (presuming that it could be proven that the gun shot caused the death prior to him hitting the ground). In this case, the riots were not caused by anything he said. Don't get me wrong, I don't like defending the guy. I think his statement was a complete douchebag thing to say, but you'd have to prove that his words were what caused the riots and I don't think you could.

What if "attempted" is put in front the charge? In many states, that reduces the grade of the offense 1 degree. So rather than the charge being "inciting a riot (or arson)" - instead "attempting to incite a riot (or arson)?"

(I don't know if that legality of "attempted" applies in Missouri).
 
As the media (both sides) poured all the gasoline on this they could for ratings and focus - I noticed something. Did you notice it?

I can not recall one time the media left or right on MLK Jr calling for NON VIOLENT protests and giving his reasons why. Rather, the media just kept predicting riots and arson - long before that was happening and only while there were peaceful protests - for which ultimately the media's predictions became self fulfilling prophesy.
 
It may be an easy olive branch to offer since it wasn't your entire life's work in your business burned down leading to your financial ruin.

I am interested to see if anyone will say he should be arrested and put on trial so a jury should decide - like so many claim should have been done with Wilson.

It is an interesting question, though. In a way, it is the Charles Manson issue. If you don't commit the crime, but tell others to do it and they do, are you part of it?

The problem is that, regardless of what is right and wrong and the legalities, should the police, the same police who killed his son (not criminally responsible, but did pull the trigger) arrest the stepfather, you might as well start handing out the lighter fluid and just write off Ferguson.
 
As the media (both sides) poured all the gasoline on this they could for ratings and focus - I noticed something. Did you notice it?

I can not recall one time the media left or right on MLK Jr calling for NON VIOLENT protests and giving his reasons why. Rather, the media just kept predicting riots and arson - long before that was happening and only while there were peaceful protests - for which ultimately the media's predictions became self fulfilling prophesy.

I've always though it was bull**** to point fingers at the media. The media is responsible for showing what is going on on the ground, and what the mood of the general public is. Were they to completely ignore the the riots and arson, that would of been grossly inaccurate of them to try and portray that picture. All the media did, and they did a good job in the aftermath (at least CNN did, Fox didn't have as much a presence on the ground) was to be in the midst of it and show the human drama that was going on. And by the way, many pundits were calling for non-violent protests, but that was never going to happened sadly, not in Ferguson at least. Outside things have been peaceful for the 95-99% of protests.
 
In front of a large crowd of protestors, Michael Brown's stepfather on a platform started shouting "BURN IT DOWN! BURN IT DOWN!" to a larger crowd in a situation were arson was not only a possibility, but then in fact did happen.

[video]http://blog.honest.com/5-natural-ways-to-treat-infant-eczema/#[/video]

Should he be prosecuted?

No. We've got enough problems right now. Prosecuting him for six words in this climate makes no sense.
 
In front of a large crowd of protestors, Michael Brown's stepfather on a platform started shouting "BURN IT DOWN! BURN IT DOWN!" to a larger crowd in a situation were arson was not only a possibility, but then in fact did happen.

[video]http://blog.honest.com/5-natural-ways-to-treat-infant-eczema/#[/video]

Should he be prosecuted?

Yes, free speech is one thing but you can't holler fire in a crowded theater and you can't by your words incite a riot.
 
Yes, free speech is one thing but you can't holler fire in a crowded theater and you can't by your words incite a riot.

If the evidence is airtight that he did it, he should be prosecuted. But I can't imagine he will be. Can you imagine the riots, if he were arrested? We're being terrorized by domestic terrorists. And here for years people have expected terrorism from muslims.
 
Yes -- he was inciting an angry mob to riot and destroy private property.
 
I've always though it was bull**** to point fingers at the media. The media is responsible for showing what is going on on the ground, and what the mood of the general public is. Were they to completely ignore the the riots and arson, that would of been grossly inaccurate of them to try and portray that picture. All the media did, and they did a good job in the aftermath (at least CNN did, Fox didn't have as much a presence on the ground) was to be in the midst of it and show the human drama that was going on. And by the way, many pundits were calling for non-violent protests, but that was never going to happened sadly, not in Ferguson at least. Outside things have been peaceful for the 95-99% of protests.

No, I'm referring to before the riots. It is the media that decides what of 100,000 things to focus on.
 
Back
Top Bottom