• 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

  • Yes, he openly called a crowd to commit arson - and they did

    Votes: 27 67.5%

  • No, free speech

    Votes: 8 20.0%

  • Only if it proven people who heard this then did commit arson

    Votes: 1 2.5%

  • I'm undecided

    Votes: 3 7.5%

  • Leave it up to a grand jury to decide

    Votes: 1 2.5%
  • Total voters
    40
JumpinJack said:
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.
Click to expand...

He broke the law... You are right he won't be prosecuted......... As far as rioting goes I have a different soulution for the problem then most...It is sit up a couple of 30 caliber machine guns and when the looters and rioters show up fire a few rounds over their heads....Problem solved no more rioters and looters.
 
joko104 said:
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?
Click to expand...

I cant imagine a more petty prosecution.
 
Superfly said:
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.
Click to expand...

This. Absolutely they should be prosecuted. It was their lies that caused much of what's gone wrong.

I selected "yes" in the poll on the stepfather but I really should have said "let the Grand Jury decide". I'm all about free speech and all that, but people have been jailed for Facebook posts and then there was that loony old man in Utah who was just punished for the hate crime which was wrong, but he didn't really take any specific actions. You could make the case that he had a right to free speech too, I guess.

This whole Ferguson **** is just a mess all around.

I don't know, maybe dear old stepdad should have to pay with some sort of community service, like cleaning up the businesses he encouraged people to "burn down".
 
JumpinJack said:
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.
Click to expand...

If by evidence do you mean is there undisputed evidence that he said "burn the mother****ers down" and all of that? Or evidence that his words actually incited the riots/looting/mother****ing burning"?

As far as imagining the riots if he was arrested, that's a really scary thought and you're so right...it was be mayhem (even worse than it already is).
 
He may have been speaking from grief for his stepson..
People say stuff they don't mean when they are angry.
And if he was prosecuted, this whole sad affair is never going to end..

Until the next time..
 
MarineTpartier said:
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.
Click to expand...

Kind of my take too in regards to this single instance. Was he potentially inciting a crime? Yes. However, given the situation he was in at that immediete moment I'd be hesistant to take any action against him unless there's clear cut evidence that his inciting directly led to an actual arson being committed. Since it doesn't seem to be the case I wouldn't really pursue it at all, even if what he did was technically illegal (not sure if it was or not).

Now if he continued doing something like that days after when emotions are not at their peak point, that'd be a different story.
 
tres borrachos said:
If by evidence do you mean is there undisputed evidence that he said "burn the mother****ers down" and all of that? Or evidence that his words actually incited the riots/looting/mother****ing burning"?

As far as imagining the riots if he was arrested, that's a really scary thought and you're so right...it was be mayhem (even worse than it already is).
Click to expand...

Merely stating the words in public is evidence of incitement to violence. I'm not sure that even violence has to occur. It's the incitement (the speaking of the words in public) that is illegal. But the fact that violence did occur soon afterwords makes that question moot.

Some people don't realize that freedom of speech is not all encompassing. Your freedom to speak ends at the beginning of someone else's rights, and it is illegal to tell people in a public forum to harm other people or property. It is illegal to yell "fire" in a theater, even if not everyone runs for safety, believing there's a fire. It's the words spoken that are illegal.

If I go on tv or other public forum and say ya da ya da ya da, and conclud with saying that people need to rise up and assassinate Obama (which I would never do, obviously), I would be arrested and charged with a crime, whether or not someone tried to act on my words.

So he should be arrested & charged for inciting violence on the property or persons of other people. But he won't be. He'll get a pass.

Imagine if a KKK member were to give an angry speech and tell people to rise up and set fire to black businesses, saying "burn 'em! burn 'em!" That is illegal.
 
JumpinJack said:
Merely stating the words in public is evidence of incitement to violence. I'm not sure that even violence has to occur. It's the incitement (the speaking of the words in public) that is illegal. But the fact that violence did occur soon afterwords makes that question moot.

Some people don't realize that freedom of speech is not all encompassing. Your freedom to speak ends at the beginning of someone else's rights, and it is illegal to tell people in a public forum to harm other people or property. It is illegal to yell "fire" in a theater, even if not everyone runs for safety, believing there's a fire. It's the words spoken that are illegal.

If I go on tv or other public forum and say ya da ya da ya da, and conclud with saying that people need to rise up and assassinate Obama (which I would never do, obviously), I would be arrested and charged with a crime, whether or not someone tried to act on my words.

So he should be arrested & charged for inciting violence on the property or persons of other people. But he won't be. He'll get a pass.

Imagine if a KKK member were to give an angry speech and tell people to rise up and set fire to black businesses, saying "burn 'em! burn 'em!" That is illegal.
Click to expand...

We have another thread on this board right now where the preacher has, on several occasions from the pulpit, called for the assassination of President Obama. Two visits from the Secret Service later? No arrest. I think our government is loath to prosecute these kinds of things for obvious reasons.

Loved your caveat meant for the black SUV in front of your house. ;)
 
JumpinJack said:
Merely stating the words in public is evidence of incitement to violence. I'm not sure that even violence has to occur. It's the incitement (the speaking of the words in public) that is illegal. But the fact that violence did occur soon afterwords makes that question moot.

Some people don't realize that freedom of speech is not all encompassing. Your freedom to speak ends at the beginning of someone else's rights, and it is illegal to tell people in a public forum to harm other people or property. It is illegal to yell "fire" in a theater, even if not everyone runs for safety, believing there's a fire. It's the words spoken that are illegal.

If I go on tv or other public forum and say ya da ya da ya da, and conclud with saying that people need to rise up and assassinate Obama (which I would never do, obviously), I would be arrested and charged with a crime, whether or not someone tried to act on my words.

So he should be arrested & charged for inciting violence on the property or persons of other people. But he won't be. He'll get a pass.

Imagine if a KKK member were to give an angry speech and tell people to rise up and set fire to black businesses, saying "burn 'em! burn 'em!" That is illegal.
Click to expand...

I don't think Michael Brown's father can compare in anyway to the KKK!
 
MaggieD said:
We have another thread on this board right now where the preacher has, on several occasions from the pulpit, called for the assassination of President Obama. Two visits from the Secret Service later? No arrest. I think our government is loath to prosecute these kinds of things for obvious reasons.

Loved your caveat meant for the black SUV in front of your house. ;)
Click to expand...



So did I. :lol: Had to giggle a little when I read that.
 
twixie1 said:
I don't think Michael Brown's father can compare in anyway to the KKK!
Click to expand...

Well, actually it's his stepfather that incited the violence, and I can see JJ's point.

Both are inciting violence. Both would be calling for businesses to be burned, out of hate and anger.
 
twixie1 said:
I don't think Michael Brown's father can compare in anyway to the KKK!
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what you or I think of the person speaking. What matters is the WORDS spoken in a public forum. I gave that as an example because of course no reasonable person, much less black people, would think the KKK person's speech is freedom of speech. AND because a U S Supreme Court decision defining and clarifying "incitement to violence" speech is an appeal by a KKK man who gave a speech on tv and declared that "revengeance" must be taken on N___s and Jews, while burning a cross for the tv. Decision: Guilty of inciting violence...even though there was no violence by the public shown to result from the televised speech.


Think of how much milder those words are ("revengeance" must be taken) than (burn 'em burn 'em!), and yet, incitement to violence was found. Fined $1k and 10 years in prison. People who incite others to violence are very dangerous. The father of Michael Brown, in the midst of unrest and violent protests over the lack of an indictment, carried a lot of weight in the community.
 
No, he shouldn't be prosecuted. He did admit to being wrong, and going over the top. Doesn't make it right, but we don't need to prosecute.
 
MaggieD said:
We have another thread on this board right now where the preacher has, on several occasions from the pulpit, called for the assassination of President Obama. Two visits from the Secret Service later? No arrest. I think our government is loath to prosecute these kinds of things for obvious reasons.

Loved your caveat meant for the black SUV in front of your house. ;)
Click to expand...

Yes, I probably gave the WRONG kind of example. Gulp.
 
MaggieD said:
We have another thread on this board right now where the preacher has, on several occasions from the pulpit, called for the assassination of President Obama. Two visits from the Secret Service later? No arrest. I think our government is loath to prosecute these kinds of things for obvious reasons.

Loved your caveat meant for the black SUV in front of your house. ;)
Click to expand...

You can't prosecute unless there's something at least planned, or someone takes an action.
 
joko104 said:
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?
Click to expand...

No. There is no reason to prosecute the guy.

All across the country they were gearing up for riots well before this guy had his little meltdown so he didn't incite a damned thing and, more importantly, if we start prosecuting people for saying stupid stuff we'll need LOTS more judges and courtrooms.
 
joko104 said:
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?
Click to expand...

If making threats of harm to someone else is illegal and you can't yell fire in a crowed theater when there is no fire then sure he should be charged.
 
Mr. Invisible 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.
Click to expand...

Sure... "kill Whitey!! kill Whitey!! " and then a bunch of black kids murder a white guy. Same goes for Jews, the president and other things. The guy is 100% guilty.
 
Lutherf said:
No. There is no reason to prosecute the guy.

All across the country they were gearing up for riots well before this guy had his little meltdown so he didn't incite a damned thing and, more importantly, if we start prosecuting people for saying stupid stuff we'll need LOTS more judges and courtrooms.
Click to expand...

He didn't incite a damn thing? You OBVIOUSLY did not watch the video. He is only standing in front of a large and angry crowd screaming "burn this bitch down" exciting them even more. I guess that no tyrant in history has been guilty of inciting crowds...
 
AS best I can tell the standard does not require people to act based on his words. That he was making incendiary comments to an angry crowd would probably be enough to reach the standard for inciting to riot. AS a law and order type, I tend to think that charges would be warranted. The only question is whether he pushed it to a jury trial, if they would be able to get a conviction. Getting a jury to convict an anguished stepfather expressing his anger might be too difficult to be worth the effort.
 
twixie1 said:
He may have been speaking from grief for his stepson..
People say stuff they don't mean when they are angry.
Click to expand...

People have to be held accountable for what they say...
 
Bodhisattva said:
He didn't incite a damn thing? You OBVIOUSLY did not watch the video. He is only standing in front of a large and angry crowd screaming "burn this bitch down" exciting them even more. I guess that no tyrant in history has been guilty of inciting crowds...
Click to expand...

He was acting out emotionally. It was pretty much the same thing as when you're 4 year old screams "I want ice cream now!!!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom