NAACP Member Claims Michael Brown's Stepfather Wasn't Inciting Violence

[Stephanie]

They have become just as dishonest as that party they belong to. Black people really should start shunning them. they are only about POLITICS now... they could care less about the conditions you are living in, if you have jobs, etc as long as they can make money for the Democrat party and tell you Democrats are who you should vote for. that's all they care about

 

[protectionist]

He won't be charged or indicted, it would be very tough to prove intent.

Seriously?
What part of "Burn this ***** down" (repeated over and over) lacks intent?

Because the riots were already anticipated long before the verdict was read, it could be argued that he didn't incite, the verdict was the cause of the riots.

Nah. It CAN'T be argued that. And there is no evidence that there were going to be riots before the verdict was read, and even if it could, that still doesn't mean that Louis Head didn't incite rioting. He incited it, verdict or no verdict, and it was obvious.

 

[Papageorgio]

He won't be charged or indicted, it would be very tough to prove intent.

Seriously?
What part of "Burn this ***** down" (repeated over and over) lacks intent?

Because the riots were already anticipated long before the verdict was read, it could be argued that he didn't incite, the verdict was the cause of the riots.

Nah. It CAN'T be argued that. And there is no evidence that there were going to be riots before the verdict was read, and even if it could, that still doesn't mean that Louis Head didn't incite rioting. He incited it, verdict or no verdict, and it was obvious.

The riots had been talked about days before, they were planned in several cities. I doubt many of the rioters heard what Louis said until after the fact. You would need people that would have to say those specific words from Louis incited them to riot. Heavy burden for the prosecution.

 

[protectionist]

He won't be charged or indicted, it would be very tough to prove intent.

Seriously?
What part of "Burn this ***** down" (repeated over and over) lacks intent?

Because the riots were already anticipated long before the verdict was read, it could be argued that he didn't incite, the verdict was the cause of the riots.

Nah. It CAN'T be argued that. And there is no evidence that there were going to be riots before the verdict was read, and even if it could, that still doesn't mean that Louis Head didn't incite rioting. He incited it, verdict or no verdict, and it was obvious.

The riots had been talked about days before, they were planned in several cities. I doubt many of the rioters heard what Louis said until after the fact. You would need people that would have to say those specific words from Louis incited them to riot. Heavy burden for the prosecution.

What you would need to have would depend on who is on the jury, what judge you have, what his inclinations are, and what mood he might be in that day.

 

[alan1]

Because the riots were already anticipated long before the verdict was read, it could be argued that he didn't incite, the verdict was the cause of the riots.

He said, "Burn this ***** down", then fires were started. He encouraged it, and incited the riots
He should be arrested and charged with a crime.

 

[hjmick]

Well Brooks is wrong...

 

[Papageorgio]

Because the riots were already anticipated long before the verdict was read, it could be argued that he didn't incite, the verdict was the cause of the riots.

He said, "Burn this ***** down", then fires were started. He encouraged it, and incited the riots
He should be arrested and charged with a crime.

How did he incite something that was already going to happen?

 

[alan1]

Because the riots were already anticipated long before the verdict was read, it could be argued that he didn't incite, the verdict was the cause of the riots.

He said, "Burn this ***** down", then fires were started. He encouraged it, and incited the riots
He should be arrested and charged with a crime.

How did he incite something that was already going to happen?

How/why did you determine that it was already going to happen?
That seems kind of foolish to assume that any grand jury verdict would result in riots and arson, since most of them don't.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

NAACP President: ‘Burn This Bi*** Down’ Not ‘A Call For Violence’
By Jeffrey Meyer | November 26, 2014 | 8:18 AM EST
Share it Tweet it More Sharing Services

0
shares
On Tuesday night, Cornell Brooks, president of the NAACP, appeared on CNN’s Erin Burnett OutFront to discuss the shooting death of Michael Brown and dismissed calls for violence by a member of Michael Brown’s immediate family as inciting violence.

Burnett played video of Brown’s stepfather, Louis Head, telling a crowd of protestors to “burn this bi*** down” after the grand jury decided not to indict Officer Darren Wilson and asked Brooks if “that served as a call for violence?” Rather than condemn Brown’s stepfather’s highly charged rhetoric, the president of the NAACP proclaimed “I don't think that was a call for violence or it caused violence.”

After the CNN host made sure to mention that Michael Brown’s stepfather “was in a lot of pain, he was in the moment” Cornell Brooks continued to deflect away from Michael Brown’s stepfather’s comments:

The fact of the matter is, a single act of violence set this tragic set of consequences into motion. That being the shooting of Michael Brown by Officer Darren Wilson. That's what, in fact, caused all of this. And one of the ways that we can respond to this tragedy is to focus anger and turn anger into action and reform the criminal justice system. We can do no less… Think about it this way. Michael Brown’s mother lost her son. Her use of an obscenity should not be a reason for us to condemn her humanity in her grief.

Erin Burnett never once challenged the NAACP president’s defense of Louis Head and instead allowed him to go on a long rant excusing the supposed call for violence as insignificant in the larger debate surrounding the shooting death of Michael Brown.

- See more at: NAACP President Burn This Bi Down Not A Call For Violence

Saw the video at long last. Sounded like inciting a riot to me.

 

[Rozman]

This is what happens when we get talking heads to do these interviews.
Journalism is dead for the most part in this country.
It's just more evidence of the Liberal bias in the media.

We all saw the video....
The man was clearly inciting the crowd to violence.

 

[Rozman]

Because the riots were already anticipated long before the verdict was read, it could be argued that he didn't incite, the verdict was the cause of the riots.

He said, "Burn this ***** down", then fires were started. He encouraged it, and incited the riots
He should be arrested and charged with a crime.

How did he incite something that was already going to happen?

Maybe he wasn't happy that the whole area wasn't burning...