Case dismissed against lawmaker accused of damaging monument

yahoo ^

[T.B. Yoits]

So what this prosecutor is saying is that anyone is free to go and destroy any government object in the jurisdiction and they won't be charged.

Good to know...

[kiryandil]

[TMN78247]

When the old Committees of Vigilance start operating again to PUNISH the GUILTY, who weren’t prosecuted by the LEFTIST MORONS, don’t say that everyone was NOT warned.

Yours, TMN78247

[Steve_Seattle]

" . . . charges against state Sen. Louise Lucas were dismissed at the request of the city’s top prosecutor, who said the elements of the charges were not properly met."

Yes, in order for the cast to go forward, the politician needs to be a Republican.

[Steve_Seattle]

"The Law is completely arbitrary today. If the perpetrator is the right sort of person, they will get off, because the perpetrator is the real victim. If the victim is the wrong sort of person, then no crime has been committed because they got what they deserved.

This is actually how Jim Crow justice was handled in the old days of lynching. The races have been reversed, but it’s just as wrong. And, both times, it was the Democrats who made the law whatever they wanted it to be."

Excellent summation.

[Secret Agent Man]

elite pass

vagina pass

[Truth29]

There are solutions, figure it out.

[Captain Rhino]

Article says (at least I think it says):

City prosecutor did not agree to the charges.

Police chief filed them anyways.

Law makers words were directed at the police not the rioters.

The lawmakers words only addressed the crowd’s intention to put paint on the statues (repairable damage less than $1000 - a misdemeanor?) not toppling/destroying the statues (a felony).

The lawmaker left the scene before the actual damage/destruction occurred. (Implying no actual attempt to immediately and directly interfere with the police “doing their job.” (Whatever that amounted to in this case since considerable damage/destruction did occur.))

The law professor seems to say the law on incitement requires the encouraging words occur immediately before the act AND they are directed act the persons who subsequently (and immediately ?) commit the illegal act.

Police chief informs the press that she has been terminated and intends to sue.

Article does not have any information on disposition of any other charges relating to the actual damage/destruction of the statues themselves.

In sum, the case for incitment is weak legally, the prosecutor didn’t back the charges, and the officer who filed them (or had them filed) has been fired subsequently.

Not sure if the charges could be corrected in this case, but the likelihood of them being refiled is probably very close to zero. Especially considering the race of the various involved parties and the city itself.

[ptsal]

interesting
thanks