Refile the corrected charges
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.