• 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
Kind of like asking... did the person who told the other person to assassinate someone, pull the trigger... Well if they dident pull the trigger but simply ordered the assassination, they should not be held accountable.

Order implies authority, which the person didn't have. Now you're starting to reach. Not saying what he did was right, but you're hunting too deep for relevance. We'll see what the authorities do with it.
 
I would... They have been complaining about the right to be equal... then they should be treated equally. If they incite a riot, they should be convicted of that crime as anyone else would be.

Who is they, and who said anyone else would be convicted any differently?
 
Order implies authority, which the person didn't have. Now you're starting to reach. Not saying what he did was right, but you're hunting too deep for relevance. We'll see what the authorities do with it.
they wont do anything.. because the belief in this country is that we don't want to anger people who are acidic to our society because they will create problems... This has been our motto since the Vietnam war, and that is why we will be a 2nd class country going into this century.
 
they wont do anything.. because the belief in this country is that we don't want to anger people who are acidic to our society because they will create problems... This has been our motto since the Vietnam war, and that is why we will be a 2nd class country going into this century.

That may be a reason, but not the main reason in my opinion.
 
Who is they, and who said anyone else would be convicted any differently?

When Manson told his followers to kill in order to start a racial war, he was convicted of those killings even though he never pulled the trigger or stabbed anyone.
 
Did he actually light a fire?

He doesn't have to light the fire to be an accessory before the fact.

Incitement

Meaning of Incitement

Incitement to commit a crime is a common law misdemeanour, even though the crime be not committed. If the crime be actually committed, the person inciting is an accessory before the fact in the case of felony, and equally guilty, in the case of treason or misdemeanour, with the person who commits the crime
 
What other laws should be ignored if their enforcement may rile up the small percentage of criminals in the area? If it's OK not to enforce the law as written then is the reverse true? Should the state have skipped the GJ and simply charged, and jailed, Wilson (regardless of having sufficient evidence to convict) just to calm things down?

What you propose seems to be the exact opposite of equal protection of the law and a return to mob rule. The problem, of course, is that you seem to wish to appease a violent minority (those prone to riot, loot and burn) to protect society rather than apply the law as written.

It's not the same. You're proposing that we charge Brown's Father, when the rioting has already ceased, thus restarting the violence. At some point you have to decide if it's really worth it to push an issue. Really you have to think of it more like negotiations in war, trying to come to a peace agreement then delivering "justice". Besides, would it be Justice if more people died just because you felt like you had to make a martyr out of Brown's father?
 
1: Don't care that he "apologized". That doesn't bring back the businesses that were burned down due to his incitement to violent actions. Nor does it bring back the life that was taken that night either. Something which I've noticed very little news coverage on.

2: As for the rioters...I really have no sympathy for them. There are ways to deal with them. Use em.

Can you really say for a fact that this father is the SOLE cause for the riots? Because if not, then really, you'd just be arresting someone who might of had nothing to do with the loss of life you mentioned (or businesses) and have only managed to inflame the situation further. (I didn't know this by the way, thanks for telling me, I'd appreciate a link as well if you have one).
 
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?

You nailed it right here Joko! If I'm a business owner in Ferguson I'm speaking to an attorney right now to see about possible civil action against this clown.
 
Can you really say for a fact that this father is the SOLE cause for the riots? Because if not, then really, you'd just be arresting someone who might of had nothing to do with the loss of life you mentioned (or businesses) and have only managed to inflame the situation further. (I didn't know this by the way, thanks for telling me, I'd appreciate a link as well if you have one).

Can you say for a fact that he's not the cause of them buildings being burned down considering what he said before the burning commenced? "Maybe's" and "if's" don't mean a thing. We can only go by what did happen. Fact is that he said what he did and that same night buildings got burned down. He is as much to blame as those that lit the fires.

Here's the link for ya that you requested. Man found dead amid Ferguson riots had bullet in head, accelerant on body:

Now I must admit, there is no guarantee that this kid died due to the riots. It may have just been someone taking advantage of the riots to commit a murder. Won't know for sure any time soon I'd imagine....if ever.
 
It's not the same. You're proposing that we charge Brown's Father, when the rioting has already ceased, thus restarting the violence. At some point you have to decide if it's really worth it to push an issue. Really you have to think of it more like negotiations in war, trying to come to a peace agreement then delivering "justice". Besides, would it be Justice if more people died just because you felt like you had to make a martyr out of Brown's father?

Except that we're not at war. We're supposedly a civilized society. And in such Browns mothers BF/Step dad or whatever he was/is should at the least be put before a grand jury just like Wilson was. I don't care if they decide to try him or not. The process needs to be followed through. Otherwise this could just encourage more people to incite violence.
 
Except that we're not at war. We're supposedly a civilized society. And in such Browns mothers BF/Step dad or whatever he was/is should at the least be put before a grand jury just like Wilson was. I don't care if they decide to try him or not. The process needs to be followed through. Otherwise this could just encourage more people to incite violence.

But the violence has stopped. You do agree though that arresting him and putting him on trial is going to lead to more violence, yes?
 
But the violence has stopped. You do agree though that arresting him and putting him on trial is going to lead to more violence, yes?

So we should just ignore the law?

Lets reverse this. Lets say the KKK got together and someone in it incited violence of the type seen in Ferguson. They let people know that if that person is charged with incitement to violence then they would riot again and burn even more buildings...should that person get away with their crime?
 
So we should just ignore the law?

Lets reverse this. Lets say the KKK got together and someone in it incited violence of the type seen in Ferguson. They let people know that if that person is charged with incitement to violence then they would riot again and burn even more buildings...should that person get away with their crime?

This is why brought in the war time analogy. When your trying to bring about peace, and really at this point that's what we're trying to do to calm everyone down, some compromises have to be made. I mean, there is what's good for the individual, and what's good for the community as a whole. I'm not saying that we should try a person who isn't guilty, but if "pardoning" a man brings about a little stability and peace to the community, and prevents the loss of another life, then I think it's worth it. Nothing is gained by prosecuting the man at this point. Now if he were actively continuing in the provocation, then I'd be with you. To me it's not a race thing, it's about what is going to calm things down in that area.

And your analogy by the way is problematic to begin with because the KKK is an organization with a leader and structure to it. We're talking about a mob here, with no clear leadership, otherwise police would probably be targeting them. On the other hand, if the member of the KKK did something, you can reasonably assume that there was an order given unless said leader comes out and offers up the one's who were responsible. So the difference?
 
This is why brought in the war time analogy. When your trying to bring about peace, and really at this point that's what we're trying to do to calm everyone down, some compromises have to be made. I mean, there is what's good for the individual, and what's good for the community as a whole. I'm not saying that we should try a person who isn't guilty, but if "pardoning" a man brings about a little stability and peace to the community, and prevents the loss of another life, then I think it's worth it. Nothing is gained by prosecuting the man at this point. Now if he were actively continuing in the provocation, then I'd be with you. To me it's not a race thing, it's about what is going to calm things down in that area.

And your analogy by the way is problematic to begin with because the KKK is an organization with a leader and structure to it. We're talking about a mob here, with no clear leadership, otherwise police would probably be targeting them. On the other hand, if the member of the KKK did something, you can reasonably assume that there was an order given unless said leader comes out and offers up the one's who were responsible. So the difference?

The leader of the KKK just denounced what that other KKK members did and claims to not have sanctioned it. What are you going to do?

And sorry, I don't agree with your war analogy because we are not in a war. We have a bunch of idiotic people that are throwing tantrums because they are not getting their way. You don't reason with such children. You spank them.
 
The leader of the KKK just denounced what that other KKK members did and claims to not have sanctioned it. What are you going to do?

And sorry, I don't agree with your war analogy because we are not in a war. We have a bunch of idiotic people that are throwing tantrums because they are not getting their way. You don't reason with such children. You spank them.

Okay, again this is a silly analogy to perpetuate because really, what is the membership numbers of the KKK? I don't have to worry about them sparking violence in a dozen American city. You arrest Michael Brown's step-dad and even go so far as to indict him, that's what you will be bringing. So no, I don't think it's worth it. Now you can go ahead and try to "spank them", but I'll guarantee you, that should you try, more lives will be lost.

Now let me ask you a question: How much is the pursuit of justice worth to you in this instance? How many lives and millions of dollars of property damage are you willing to risk to achieve what you believe to be "justice".
 
Last edited:
It's not the same. You're proposing that we charge Brown's Father, when the rioting has already ceased, thus restarting the violence. At some point you have to decide if it's really worth it to push an issue. Really you have to think of it more like negotiations in war, trying to come to a peace agreement then delivering "justice". Besides, would it be Justice if more people died just because you felt like you had to make a martyr out of Brown's father?

If that is your criteria then why charge anyone after the damage is done? You have simply picked a side (that of the rioters?) and are trying deperately to justify prosecutors making exceptions based on your bias. If it is not "worth it" to enforce the law then we will continue to see those that see destroying (and stealing) the property of those of the wrong race as a valid means of "expressing grief". What, exactly, do you see as justice for those that had their businesses destroyed? Why are those that advocate taking out their "grief" on parties that had ZERO to do with it now above the law? The nerve of that store owner to provide video proof that the alleged "gentle giant" was actually a violent thug.
 
If that is your criteria then why charge anyone after the damage is done? You have simply picked a side (that of the rioters?) and are trying deperately to justify prosecutors making exceptions based on your bias. If it is not "worth it" to enforce the law then we will continue to see those that see destroying (and stealing) the property of those of the wrong race as a valid means of "expressing grief". What, exactly, do you see as justice for those that had their businesses destroyed? Why are those that advocate taking out their "grief" on parties that had ZERO to do with it? The nerve of that store owner to provide video proof that the alleged "gentle giant" was actually a violent thug.

I think the ones that actually set fire to the buildings should be prosecuted. They committed a crime and someone does need to answer for it, I agree. But getting back to Brown's Father, we don't know he's a violent thug, and calling him such when you have no proof he carried out any of the acts of violence is not helpful to the the situation. All we have right now is a tape of him saying some incendiary things. I doubt you could even prove that those who committed said violence even heard him. And even if they did, they still could of chose not to commit the crime. Now had he actually of committed the arson, then I would say he should be punished. But as it stands, locking up a man who was obviously grief-stricken step father for words isn't worth one more night of violence across this country.
 
You nailed it right here Joko! If I'm a business owner in Ferguson I'm speaking to an attorney right now to see about possible civil action against this clown.

Don't forget those who cheered him from a safe distance.
 
I think the ones that actually set fire to the buildings should be prosecuted. They committed a crime and someone does need to answer for it, I agree. But getting back to Brown's Father, we don't know he's a violent thug, and calling him such when you have no proof he carried out any of the acts of violence is not helpful to the the situation. All we have right now is a tape of him saying some incendiary things. I doubt you could even prove that those who committed said violence even heard him. And even if they did, they still could of chose not to commit the crime. Now had he actually of committed the arson, then I would say he should be punished. But as it stands, locking up a man who was obviously grief-stricken step father for words isn't worth one more night of violence across this country.

All we have is video evidence so leave him alone? One does not have to prove that anyone acted on those words, although that would likely be quite easy to do (simply grant immunity to a rioter or two). Do you also approve of placing dead or alive bounties on folks?
 
All we have is video evidence so leave him alone? One does not have to prove that anyone acted on those words, although that would likely be quite easy to do (simply grant immunity to a rioter or two). Do you also approve of placing dead or alive bounties on folks?

You know what TW, you got to ask your question, so before I answer yours, It's only fair you answer mine. How many lives you willing to risk to put a grief-stricken and not remorseful father behind bars? Ten Lives? Twenty Lives? How many millions in property damage are you willing to risk in some crusade for of justice? We're currently sitting on a powder keg right now, and all you seem to want to do is throw a match in and let the whole thing blow.
 
You nailed it right here Joko! If I'm a business owner in Ferguson I'm speaking to an attorney right now to see about possible civil action against this clown.

Don't forget those who cheered him from a safe distance.

Oh I could see that going well. Sue some guy who's probably on minimum wage a long with a random internet activist. I'm sure they'll recoup their losses...
 
Back
Top Bottom