This blog allows students of Mr. Chazen's AP US Government classes to continue discussions, debates and conversations concerning issues and topics introduced in class.
Wednesday, December 10, 2014
#7 Should Michael Brown's step father be prosecuted for speech about burning city down?
I believe that if the people who did burn the city can be connected to Michael Brown's step father's speech, then he should be prosecuted. I understand that it was a very emotionally charged time for him and his family, however, in Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire it was determined that statements that inflict harm or breach of peace are not protected by the 1st Amendment. If there are people found that burned the city and it can be proven that Michael Brown's stepfather's speech was connected to their actions, then he should be prosecuted because calling for arson should certainly be counted as harm or breach of peace. However, if there is no connection found between the two events, the 1st amendment protects Michael Brown's stepfather.
I believe that Michael Brown's step father should be prosecuted for speech about burning down the city. Even if there were no fires started that night and even if the people that set the fires did not hear him, he is still responsible for saying things that called for violence and had the power to create imminent danger.
I do not believe he should be prosecuted. His calls for violence did not involve coercion or direct insults at particular people, so in voicing his anger, he did not force anyone to commit any sort of crime. People who committed arson that night thus have full responsibility for their own actions, regardless of the words that they may have heard.
I agree with Crystal. I don't think that Michael Brown's father should be prosecuted for his speech about burning the city down. While there were fires that night, it would be difficult to draw a link between those actions and the father's words. There could be individuals who didn't even listen to the father's words and who decided to set fires. Additionally, it's important to take into consideration of how the father must have felt after hearing the no indictment decision. But overall, the father shouldn't be prosecuted based solely on the lack of clarity linked between his speech and the actions of others
I believe that Michael Brown's step father should be prosecuted if they are able to link or connect the burning of the buildings that night to his speech. This would be direct statements to go cause violence and burn down their city which is illegal. I also believe that even if Michael Brown's step father's violent speech didn't directly correspond with the people who burned down the city, or at least the members who participated would not connect the burnings to his speech, it is still speech that is allowing for violence and the burning of innocent businesses, which I believe is still wrong.
Michael Brown's father should not be prosecuted for his speech on the night of the Grand Jury decision. Since Brown's father did not set any fires himself, nor have they found any direct connections between him and the fires, blame for the fires cannot be placed upon Brown's father. Also, given the fact that Brown had just discovered that his son's murderer, no matter the job or motive of the individual, would not receive any sort of punishment, his anguish and fury in the moment is understandable. Undoubtedly, Brown could have handled the situation with more tact and self-control, but all things considered, it seems that his speech was purely out of reasonable anger, and had no real malicious intent behind it.
Michael Brown's father should be prosecuted for comment he made on the night of the decision. He called for the burning of buildings and sure enough buildings burned. Even if no one who heard his speech actually burned buildings, he still called for arson which is illegal and dangerous. His words created imminent danger and provoked lawless action which should not go unpunished.
I believe that given the circumstances and the potential repercussions of the possible prosecution of Michael Brown's step father it would not be a wise idea. I think it would not help the situation any more and would infuriate the Ferguson community. And I don't think that the police would find a cooperative person to claim they burned the city down because of Michael Brown's step fathers requests. The police and most of the St. Louis community would like for this to be behind us and try and move on. May that be with solutions or not we will have to see. But I feel that prosecuting the step father for his speech in a heated, emotional moment would not be a step in the right direction.
Michael Brown’s stepfather should only be prosecuted for his speech to burn the city down, if prosecutors can prove that the Michael Brown’s stepfather directly influenced the crimes that night. Also since there were protesters in the crowd who were already angry and ready to protest about the grand jury decision, Michael Brown’s stepfather's speech encouraging arson would be hard to directly link to the burning of the city.
I believe that he should be prosecuted because his actions incited a riot and thats illegal. Ferguson may have burned anyways but his words definitely impacted the views of many. His words created emotions and his emotions later created action
Michael Brown's stepfather should not be prosecuted because he did not direct his speech at a particular group of people. While his words may have been angry and could have possibly caused others to want to start fires, it would be nearly impossible for someone to prove that a person committed a crime because Brown's stepfather said to. Many people could have committed crimes without even having heard Brown's stepfather's speech.
I believe that Michael Brown's step father should NOT be prosecuted because anyone who chose to burn the city down, whether or not he told them to, it was their choice. I'm gonna use the old saying, if your friend jumps off a bridge, are you gonna jump with him? Same thing here, if he wants to yell angry things, then let him, he should not be prosecuted for a hard time losing his step son and then the murderer not being indicted.
I think that in the circumstance of Michael Brown's stepfather, he should be charged for being a public figure who called for the city to be burned down in front of a large crowd. I believe that there was probably a significant correlation between his words and what happened later. If what had happened later did not occur, then I believe that nothing would happen, but since his actions likely contributed to the burning of the city, he should be charged. I think this falls somewhere between Clear and Present Danger and the Direct Incitement Rule. Speech is directed at inciting imminent lawless action (which occurred) but maybe can't quite be considered clear and present danger, but since it lies in the gray area in between these two, he is not protected by the 1st amendment and therefore should be charged.
I believe Michael Brown's step father should be prosecuted because he was clearly advocating the burning down of Ferguson. Although we can not prove that any of the people that were there listening to him were actually involved in any of the burning, it is clear that after he said to burn the area it happened. This is a clear statement of violence and he should be punished for encouraging something that is illegal that then proceeded to come true.
I believe that Micheal Browns stepfather should be prosecuted after the speech he gave when the Grand Jury decision was made. Even though he did not direct his speech to every body, there was a great amount of people where he was saying these things and it was verily directed to them, which might have caused them the go "burn that [place] down". His speech definitely created inevitable danger that had come to the city of Ferguson, and as we know many places were burned down and destroyed. And many others were injured.
While even the presence of Michael Brown's step-father at the protest when the not-indictment was announced was not a wise idea, as he should have expected something of this nature to occur, he should not be prosecuted for his request to burn Ferguson down. There are two main reasons for this conclusion and that is because of the lack of sincerity of the comment, and the lack of a provable and direct cause-effect relationship. Firstly, a short time following the protest, he released an official apology for his words, stating, rightfully so, that he was simply emotionally compromised and that his word did not have any true meaning behind it. Many people would argue that regardless of whether or not Ferguson burned, the fact that he would even say such a thing should be enough to follow through with prosecution. What these people may not necessarily take into consideration, however, is that this would indicate that in any situation where something dangerous is suggested at any time, regardless of sincerity, should be taken into account. In other words, any time somebody jokingly says “I’m gonna kill you” or something of the like, that will be considered as a genuine death threat, regardless of the situation. Secondly, in this situation the burning down of Ferguson did in fact occur, however, this was something the general public had been expecting for a long time now, and there is no way we could at this time prove who those chaos causers were – and much less if they were inspired by Brown’s stepfather’s words.
In acting as a figurehead among the protesters, Mike Brown's father received unparalleled attention at the time. Thus his words had the capability to create dangerous tendency as it could have incited members of the crowd to threaten public security. As contrasted to Phelps V. Snyder, another case where the right to assemble for protesters was questioned and upheld, the speech in this case vastly differed as the assembly was much more concentrated and evident to physical violence as shown later that night. All in all, he should receive punishment for the statements he made that inspired destruction.
while his step father's words were relevant to the rioting that occurred that night, it had no direct impact, the rioting would've happened anyways, so his step father's words are inconsequential.
he should not be prosecuted because even though he might have enticed some to burn to the town, he never specified what he wants to burn down. if he said burn Ferguson down, then that would be "clear and present danger" ,but he said burn this Bitch down, thats not clear danger. those people who burned the town after michel browns stepfather said had the intention of burning buildings from the get-go. but know , they can used what this man said as an excuse of why the did what they did.
I do not believe that Michael Brown's stepfather should be prosecuted for speech about burning the city town. He was in an emotional state and while what he said did threaten the government, the people of Ferguson were already going to riot even if he hadn't said anything. Also, there's no clear way to find out if all the people who burned buildings down were enticed by the stepfather's words.
I believe that Michael Brown's step father should be prosecuted for speech about burning the city down. He should be prosecuted because his speech is connected and promoted violence among the town. Because, it was emotionally charged, people are more likely to do what he says because he is the step father. His speech created danger and provoked danger and riots among the town of Ferguson.
Keeping in mind the court cases we learned about regarding freedom of speech, I believe Michael Brown should have been prosecuted for his provocative speech IF the police found a protestor who acted upon his speech. However, not only will this be hard to prove, it will also exacerbate the situation.
I don't believe he should be prosecuted based solely on his speech. There's not any evidence to back it was him causing people to start all those fires. As if anyone would actually admit to it. And if he was prosecuted there would be an immediate public uproar calling for his release, furthering the outcry for justice in the United States and making the government look bad for jailing someone for saying how they feel. Anybody who decides to take action based on the emotional and heavily influenced words of someone they probably don't even know. It's a decision to burn a building down, nobody was forced. As with all things in life, there is a choice.
Thinking about what wa said in class, Micheal Brown's stepfather should not be persecuted. With the chaos going on there, people should look at it as him saying his opinions and emotions out loud in the wake of the announcement. Whatever people do after it is said is up to them. It could also be looked at as many people were already planning these riots before they heard his words and we're going to do what they wanted anyways.
I agree with Donatella on the matter of the speech. I believe that Michael Brown's stepfather was not connected to the burning because he may not have had any connection to crime in Ferguson. Unless Michael Brown's stepfather was giving a signal to start burning stores, then he shouldn't be prosecuted for his speech. If this was connected to crime, then it would have to be proven that he was signaling violence and destruction of businesses.
Michael Brown's stepfather should not be prosecuted. ON one hand, his words did set up a situation concurrent with imminent danger. However, as pointed out by many already on this post, there has been no evidence correlating his speech to the actions of others burning buildings. In addition we saw on the video that his emotional state was borderline psychotic. Should he be responsible for his actions with the repercussions of officer Wilson's acquittal? I say no. The outburst was a process of his grief, unable to be contained in such a stressful situation. He shouldn't be prosecuted for something he said while in obvious distress that we so far have no evidence showing its influence in the burning of buildings.
26 comments:
I believe that if the people who did burn the city can be connected to Michael Brown's step father's speech, then he should be prosecuted. I understand that it was a very emotionally charged time for him and his family, however, in Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire it was determined that statements that inflict harm or breach of peace are not protected by the 1st Amendment. If there are people found that burned the city and it can be proven that Michael Brown's stepfather's speech was connected to their actions, then he should be prosecuted because calling for arson should certainly be counted as harm or breach of peace. However, if there is no connection found between the two events, the 1st amendment protects Michael Brown's stepfather.
I believe that Michael Brown's step father should be prosecuted for speech about burning down the city. Even if there were no fires started that night and even if the people that set the fires did not hear him, he is still responsible for saying things that called for violence and had the power to create imminent danger.
I do not believe he should be prosecuted. His calls for violence did not involve coercion or direct insults at particular people, so in voicing his anger, he did not force anyone to commit any sort of crime. People who committed arson that night thus have full responsibility for their own actions, regardless of the words that they may have heard.
I agree with Crystal. I don't think that Michael Brown's father should be prosecuted for his speech about burning the city down. While there were fires that night, it would be difficult to draw a link between those actions and the father's words. There could be individuals who didn't even listen to the father's words and who decided to set fires. Additionally, it's important to take into consideration of how the father must have felt after hearing the no indictment decision. But overall, the father shouldn't be prosecuted based solely on the lack of clarity linked between his speech and the actions of others
I believe that Michael Brown's step father should be prosecuted if they are able to link or connect the burning of the buildings that night to his speech. This would be direct statements to go cause violence and burn down their city which is illegal. I also believe that even if Michael Brown's step father's violent speech didn't directly correspond with the people who burned down the city, or at least the members who participated would not connect the burnings to his speech, it is still speech that is allowing for violence and the burning of innocent businesses, which I believe is still wrong.
Michael Brown's father should not be prosecuted for his speech on the night of the Grand Jury decision. Since Brown's father did not set any fires himself, nor have they found any direct connections between him and the fires, blame for the fires cannot be placed upon Brown's father. Also, given the fact that Brown had just discovered that his son's murderer, no matter the job or motive of the individual, would not receive any sort of punishment, his anguish and fury in the moment is understandable. Undoubtedly, Brown could have handled the situation with more tact and self-control, but all things considered, it seems that his speech was purely out of reasonable anger, and had no real malicious intent behind it.
Michael Brown's father should be prosecuted for comment he made on the night of the decision. He called for the burning of buildings and sure enough buildings burned. Even if no one who heard his speech actually burned buildings, he still called for arson which is illegal and dangerous. His words created imminent danger and provoked lawless action which should not go unpunished.
I believe that given the circumstances and the potential repercussions of the possible prosecution of Michael Brown's step father it would not be a wise idea. I think it would not help the situation any more and would infuriate the Ferguson community. And I don't think that the police would find a cooperative person to claim they burned the city down because of Michael Brown's step fathers requests. The police and most of the St. Louis community would like for this to be behind us and try and move on. May that be with solutions or not we will have to see. But I feel that prosecuting the step father for his speech in a heated, emotional moment would not be a step in the right direction.
Michael Brown’s stepfather should only be prosecuted for his speech to burn the city down, if prosecutors can prove that the Michael Brown’s stepfather directly influenced the crimes that night. Also since there were protesters in the crowd who were already angry and ready to protest about the grand jury decision, Michael Brown’s stepfather's speech encouraging arson would be hard to directly link to the burning of the city.
I believe that he should be prosecuted because his actions incited a riot and thats illegal. Ferguson may have burned anyways but his words definitely impacted the views of many. His words created emotions and his emotions later created action
Michael Brown's stepfather should not be prosecuted because he did not direct his speech at a particular group of people. While his words may have been angry and could have possibly caused others to want to start fires, it would be nearly impossible for someone to prove that a person committed a crime because Brown's stepfather said to. Many people could have committed crimes without even having heard Brown's stepfather's speech.
I believe that Michael Brown's step father should NOT be prosecuted because anyone who chose to burn the city down, whether or not he told them to, it was their choice. I'm gonna use the old saying, if your friend jumps off a bridge, are you gonna jump with him? Same thing here, if he wants to yell angry things, then let him, he should not be prosecuted for a hard time losing his step son and then the murderer not being indicted.
I think that in the circumstance of Michael Brown's stepfather, he should be charged for being a public figure who called for the city to be burned down in front of a large crowd. I believe that there was probably a significant correlation between his words and what happened later. If what had happened later did not occur, then I believe that nothing would happen, but since his actions likely contributed to the burning of the city, he should be charged. I think this falls somewhere between Clear and Present Danger and the Direct Incitement Rule. Speech is directed at inciting imminent lawless action (which occurred) but maybe can't quite be considered clear and present danger, but since it lies in the gray area in between these two, he is not protected by the 1st amendment and therefore should be charged.
I believe Michael Brown's step father should be prosecuted because he was clearly advocating the burning down of Ferguson. Although we can not prove that any of the people that were there listening to him were actually involved in any of the burning, it is clear that after he said to burn the area it happened. This is a clear statement of violence and he should be punished for encouraging something that is illegal that then proceeded to come true.
I believe that Micheal Browns stepfather should be prosecuted after the speech he gave when the Grand Jury decision was made. Even though he did not direct his speech to every body, there was a great amount of people where he was saying these things and it was verily directed to them, which might have caused them the go "burn that [place] down". His speech definitely created inevitable danger that had come to the city of Ferguson, and as we know many places were burned down and destroyed. And many others were injured.
While even the presence of Michael Brown's step-father at the protest when the not-indictment was announced was not a wise idea, as he should have expected something of this nature to occur, he should not be prosecuted for his request to burn Ferguson down. There are two main reasons for this conclusion and that is because of the lack of sincerity of the comment, and the lack of a provable and direct cause-effect relationship. Firstly, a short time following the protest, he released an official apology for his words, stating, rightfully so, that he was simply emotionally compromised and that his word did not have any true meaning behind it. Many people would argue that regardless of whether or not Ferguson burned, the fact that he would even say such a thing should be enough to follow through with prosecution. What these people may not necessarily take into consideration, however, is that this would indicate that in any situation where something dangerous is suggested at any time, regardless of sincerity, should be taken into account. In other words, any time somebody jokingly says “I’m gonna kill you” or something of the like, that will be considered as a genuine death threat, regardless of the situation. Secondly, in this situation the burning down of Ferguson did in fact occur, however, this was something the general public had been expecting for a long time now, and there is no way we could at this time prove who those chaos causers were – and much less if they were inspired by Brown’s stepfather’s words.
In acting as a figurehead among the protesters, Mike Brown's father received unparalleled attention at the time. Thus his words had the capability to create dangerous tendency as it could have incited members of the crowd to threaten public security. As contrasted to Phelps V. Snyder, another case where the right to assemble for protesters was questioned and upheld, the speech in this case vastly differed as the assembly was much more concentrated and evident to physical violence as shown later that night. All in all, he should receive punishment for the statements he made that inspired destruction.
while his step father's words were relevant to the rioting that occurred that night, it had no direct impact, the rioting would've happened anyways, so his step father's words are inconsequential.
he should not be prosecuted because even though he might have enticed some to burn to the town, he never specified what he wants to burn down. if he said burn Ferguson down, then that would be "clear and present danger" ,but he said burn this Bitch down, thats not clear danger. those people who burned the town after michel browns stepfather said had the intention of burning buildings from the get-go. but know , they can used what this man said as an excuse of why the did what they did.
I do not believe that Michael Brown's stepfather should be prosecuted for speech about burning the city town. He was in an emotional state and while what he said did threaten the government, the people of Ferguson were already going to riot even if he hadn't said anything. Also, there's no clear way to find out if all the people who burned buildings down were enticed by the stepfather's words.
I believe that Michael Brown's step father should be prosecuted for speech about burning the city down. He should be prosecuted because his speech is connected and promoted violence among the town. Because, it was emotionally charged, people are more likely to do what he says because he is the step father. His speech created danger and provoked danger and riots among the town of Ferguson.
Keeping in mind the court cases we learned about regarding freedom of speech, I believe Michael Brown should have been prosecuted for his provocative speech IF the police found a protestor who acted upon his speech. However, not only will this be hard to prove, it will also exacerbate the situation.
I don't believe he should be prosecuted based solely on his speech. There's not any evidence to back it was him causing people to start all those fires. As if anyone would actually admit to it. And if he was prosecuted there would be an immediate public uproar calling for his release, furthering the outcry for justice in the United States and making the government look bad for jailing someone for saying how they feel. Anybody who decides to take action based on the emotional and heavily influenced words of someone they probably don't even know. It's a decision to burn a building down, nobody was forced. As with all things in life, there is a choice.
Thinking about what wa said in class, Micheal Brown's stepfather should not be persecuted. With the chaos going on there, people should look at it as him saying his opinions and emotions out loud in the wake of the announcement. Whatever people do after it is said is up to them. It could also be looked at as many people were already planning these riots before they heard his words and we're going to do what they wanted anyways.
I agree with Donatella on the matter of the speech. I believe that Michael Brown's stepfather was not connected to the burning because he may not have had any connection to crime in Ferguson. Unless Michael Brown's stepfather was giving a signal to start burning stores, then he shouldn't be prosecuted for his speech. If this was connected to crime, then it would have to be proven that he was signaling violence and destruction of businesses.
Michael Brown's stepfather should not be prosecuted. ON one hand, his words did set up a situation concurrent with imminent danger. However, as pointed out by many already on this post, there has been no evidence correlating his speech to the actions of others burning buildings. In addition we saw on the video that his emotional state was borderline psychotic. Should he be responsible for his actions with the repercussions of officer Wilson's acquittal? I say no. The outburst was a process of his grief, unable to be contained in such a stressful situation. He shouldn't be prosecuted for something he said while in obvious distress that we so far have no evidence showing its influence in the burning of buildings.
Post a Comment