Anti-police lawyer engages in incitement to arson

[Derec]

The background is the case of an armed black man, Steve Perkins, who threatened a repo guy with a gun. The repo guy came back with the police, Perkins was still armed, and the rest you can guess.

Decatur Mayor & Police Chief ask for protests to remain peaceful

At the vigil Thursday night that News 19 attended, Merritt said, “If you are quiet and you don’t say anything that means you consent, if you don’t get into these streets, that means you consent, if you don’t burn something down, that must mean you consent.”
Merritt’s comments were met by loud cheers from the crowd.

Shouldn't behavior like this be grounds for disbarment?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Yes, Derec, the Reich-wing should definitely cancel this guy because he's an uppity Black man who thinks a life is worth more than property. However, the left-wing should also cancel this guy because he doesn't understand what consent is. The only ones who shouldn't cancel him are classical liberals who keep telling me that free speech let's you say whatever you want without consequences.

 

[laughing dog]

The background is the case of an armed black man, Steve Perkins, who threatened a repo guy with a gun. The repo guy came back with the police, Perkins was still armed, and the rest you can guess.

Decatur Mayor & Police Chief ask for protests to remain peaceful

At the vigil Thursday night that News 19 attended, Merritt said, “If you are quiet and you don’t say anything that means you consent, if you don’t get into these streets, that means you consent, if you don’t burn something down, that must mean you consent.”
Merritt’s comments were met by loud cheers from the crowd.

Shouldn't behavior like this be grounds for disbarment?

Calling this an incitement to arson is a real stretch. Its called inflammatory rhetoric in which many people use regardless of their politics or ideology.

 

[Derec]

Yes, Derec, the Reich-wing should definitely cancel this guy because he's an uppity Black man who thinks a life is worth more than property.

No. ABA should cancel him because he is an attorney, and that comes with certain responsibilities. Like not irresponsibly inciting a mob to burn shit down. It has nothing to do with his skin color, your hobby horsing notwithstanding.

However, the left-wing should also cancel this guy because he doesn't understand what consent is.

Consent?

The only ones who shouldn't cancel him are classical liberals who keep telling me that free speech let's you say whatever you want without consequences.

There are limits to free speech. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is the proverbial example. Calling on people to commit arson is, if not criminal, certainly unethical. I do not see what classical liberalism has to do with it.

 

[Derec]

Calling this an incitement to arson is a real stretch. Its called inflammatory rhetoric in which many people use regardless of their politics or ideology.

He is an attorney. An officer of the court. He needs to comport himself in a manner befitting his status.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Yes, Derec, the Reich-wing should definitely cancel this guy because he's an uppity Black man who thinks a life is worth more than property.

No. ABA should cancel him because he is an attorney, and that comes with certain responsibilities. Like not irresponsibly inciting a mob to burn shit down. It has nothing to do with his skin color, your hobby horsing notwithstanding.

I think he was using hyperbole, kind of like how you do. Are you against hyperbole suddenly?

However, the left-wing should also cancel this guy because he doesn't understand what consent is.

Consent?

I am not surprised you don't know what that means or how it is relevant.

The only ones who shouldn't cancel him are classical liberals who keep telling me that free speech let's you say whatever you want without consequences.

There are limits to free speech. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is the proverbial example. Calling on people to commit arson is, if not criminal, certainly unethical. I do not see what classical liberalism has to do with it.

Obviously, Derec, the idea of free speech stops when you impact other people, just like you can flail your arms around but if they get in someone's face, there's an issue. It's funny how you recognize this now suddenly.

 

[laughing dog]

Calling this an incitement to arson is a real stretch. Its called inflammatory rhetoric in which many people use regardless of their politics or ideology.

He is an attorney. An officer of the court. He needs to comport himself in a manner befitting his status.

He is also a citizen of the US and entitled to the same 1st Amendment rights that you and I enjoy.

 

[TomC]

He is also a citizen of the US and entitled to the same 1st Amendment rights

This is quite why I find threads like this such a hoot.

I look around at the current U.S. socio-political world and see tons of incitement. The vast majority comes from Teapartiers, like Trump and Carlson and Jones.

Somehow, that becomes 1st Amendment issues. But some rando saying "if you don’t burn something down, that must mean you consent.” should be grounds for disbarment.

Ridiculous.

I'm no fan of BLM. But, still...
Tom

 

[Derec]

He is also a citizen of the US and entitled to the same 1st Amendment rights that you and I enjoy.

Did I ever say that he is not a citizen? But the privilege of practicing law is also connected to certain obligations. Not encouraging people to commit crimes for example.

 

[Derec]

Somehow, that becomes 1st Amendment issues. But some rando saying "if you don’t burn something down, that must mean you consent.” should be grounds for disbarment.

He is not a "rando". He is the attorney for the family of the dead guy. Him encouraging people to burn this shit down is beyond the pale for an attorney to do.

 

[laughing dog]

He is also a citizen of the US and entitled to the same 1st Amendment rights that you and I enjoy.

Did I ever say that he is not a citizen? But the privilege of practicing law is also connected to certain obligations. Not encouraging people to commit crimes for example.

Burning something is not a crime in at of itself. People burn stuff all the time without committing a crime.

Again, your interpretation that he is inciting people to commit arson is a real stretch.

 

[Derec]

Burning something is not a crime in at of itself. People burn stuff all the time without committing a crime.
Again, your interpretation that he is inciting people to commit arson is a real stretch.

It's not a stretch. You are not fooling anyone with your vapid suggestion that he just meant burning some leaves in one's yard.
Everybody knows what he meant. Even you.

 

[bilby]

But the privilege of practicing law is also connected to certain obligations. Not encouraging people to commit crimes for example.

Lawyers are obliged, when acting in their professional capacity, not to advise their clients to commit crimes.

There's no obligation for them to refrain from exercising their first amendment rights when acting as private citizens.

 

[laughing dog]

Burning something is not a crime in at of itself. People burn stuff all the time without committing a crime.
Again, your interpretation that he is inciting people to commit arson is a real stretch.

It's not a stretch. You are not fooling anyone with your vapid suggestion that he just meant burning some leaves in one's yard.
Everybody knows what he meant. Even you.

Of course it is a stretch- any disinterested person with a modicum of basic reasoning ability can see it.

Instead of whining in anonymity, why don’t you report him to the local chapter of the ABA and report back what happens?

BTW had there been an outbreak of arson in the area?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The background is the case of an armed black man, Steve Perkins, who threatened a repo guy with a gun. The repo guy came back with the police, Perkins was still armed, and the rest you can guess.

Decatur Mayor & Police Chief ask for protests to remain peaceful

At the vigil Thursday night that News 19 attended, Merritt said, “If you are quiet and you don’t say anything that means you consent, if you don’t get into these streets, that means you consent, if you don’t burn something down, that must mean you consent.”
Merritt’s comments were met by loud cheers from the crowd.

Shouldn't behavior like this be grounds for disbarment?

Calling this an incitement to arson is a real stretch. Its called inflammatory rhetoric in which many people use regardless of their politics or ideology.

What stretch? It certainly looks like an incitement to me.

I do not know whether what he said is illegal but it certainly sounds like he's saying you should burn something down if you don't agree with the situation.

 

[laughing dog]

The background is the case of an armed black man, Steve Perkins, who threatened a repo guy with a gun. The repo guy came back with the police, Perkins was still armed, and the rest you can guess.

Decatur Mayor & Police Chief ask for protests to remain peaceful

At the vigil Thursday night that News 19 attended, Merritt said, “If you are quiet and you don’t say anything that means you consent, if you don’t get into these streets, that means you consent, if you don’t burn something down, that must mean you consent.”
Merritt’s comments were met by loud cheers from the crowd.

Shouldn't behavior like this be grounds for disbarment?

Calling this an incitement to arson is a real stretch. Its called inflammatory rhetoric in which many people use regardless of their politics or ideology.

What stretch? It certainly looks like an incitement to me.

I do not know whether what he said is illegal but it certainly sounds like he's saying you should burn something down if you don't agree with the situation.

Try reading it again with your eyes open. Merrit’s statement is logically false.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The movement that is aware of the civil rights activist lawyer know that he is non-violent and can put the statement into a broader context of non-violence, meaning it is a metaphorical statement. IF we had also had a non-quote-mined version of his entire speech, we might (MAYBE) be able to see something there indicating some kind of literary device interpretation, like sarcasm, hyperbole, metaphor. The few sentences are strewn across news reports without the greater context and it is difficult to find an entire set of words conveying the specific meaning.

That said, he clarified the meaning as metaphorical publicly. Yet, calls that his incorrectly interpreted meaning will cause arson continue to be propagated more than a week after he already publicly said that wasn't what he meant to those persons who had interpreted it in that way.

There could be an ad infinitum debate now on semantics of what he meant or what he didn't mean and that is a pretty unproductive endeavor.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The background is the case of an armed black man, Steve Perkins, who threatened a repo guy with a gun. The repo guy came back with the police, Perkins was still armed, and the rest you can guess.

Decatur Mayor & Police Chief ask for protests to remain peaceful

At the vigil Thursday night that News 19 attended, Merritt said, “If you are quiet and you don’t say anything that means you consent, if you don’t get into these streets, that means you consent, if you don’t burn something down, that must mean you consent.”
Merritt’s comments were met by loud cheers from the crowd.

Shouldn't behavior like this be grounds for disbarment?

Calling this an incitement to arson is a real stretch. Its called inflammatory rhetoric in which many people use regardless of their politics or ideology.

What stretch? It certainly looks like an incitement to me.

I do not know whether what he said is illegal but it certainly sounds like he's saying you should burn something down if you don't agree with the situation.

Try reading it again with your eyes open. Merrit’s statement is logically false.

Try to quit evading any point you don't like. So what if it's false? It's still a call to burn things. Do we ignore all the wrong stuff the Orange One said?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The movement that is aware of the civil rights activist lawyer know that he is non-violent and can put the statement into a broader context of non-violence, meaning it is a metaphorical statement. IF we had also had a non-quote-mined version of his entire speech, we might (MAYBE) be able to see something there indicating some kind of literary device interpretation, like sarcasm, hyperbole, metaphor. The few sentences are strewn across news reports without the greater context and it is difficult to find an entire set of words conveying the specific meaning.

That said, he clarified the meaning as metaphorical publicly. Yet, calls that his incorrectly interpreted meaning will cause arson continue to be propagated more than a week after he already publicly said that wasn't what he meant to those persons who had interpreted it in that way.

There could be an ad infinitum debate now on semantics of what he meant or what he didn't mean and that is a pretty unproductive endeavor.

If it's a metaphor it's done very badly as it looks like a call for arson and burning things is not that uncommon in violent protests.

 

[laughing dog]

The background is the case of an armed black man, Steve Perkins, who threatened a repo guy with a gun. The repo guy came back with the police, Perkins was still armed, and the rest you can guess.

Decatur Mayor & Police Chief ask for protests to remain peaceful

At the vigil Thursday night that News 19 attended, Merritt said, “If you are quiet and you don’t say anything that means you consent, if you don’t get into these streets, that means you consent, if you don’t burn something down, that must mean you consent.”
Merritt’s comments were met by loud cheers from the crowd.

Shouldn't behavior like this be grounds for disbarment?

Calling this an incitement to arson is a real stretch. Its called inflammatory rhetoric in which many people use regardless of their politics or ideology.

What stretch? It certainly looks like an incitement to me.

I do not know whether what he said is illegal but it certainly sounds like he's saying you should burn something down if you don't agree with the situation.

Try reading it again with your eyes open. Merrit’s statement is logically false.

Try to quit evading any point you don't like. So what if it's false? It's still a call to burn things. Do we ignore all the wrong stuff the Orange One said?

As Don pointed out, your interpretation has been disputed by the lawyer. So stop making false accusations. in order to save face,