really...still....umm....well then

something about the law needs to be changed. I mean, any talk about hate killings should be seen as a criminal offense to at least some degree.

Either way, this guy knew that was he was doing was wrong and completey disrespectful to the men and women who try to protect civilians and stuff. And Posting it on Youtube was just about as stupid as it can get....while waving a gun around

be serious. This was stupid, and they did have a right to arrest him for it.

I am being serious, there is no reason to change the first amendment to do so would be to trample the constitution as it is the law above all other laws in this country.
Any talk of killing doesn't necessarily mean someone is actually going to do it. Also I guaranty you if I called the police and told them some guy on youtube says white people should die, they wouldn't do a damn thing about it. You know why? Because a crime hadn't been committed.

I agree that what he did was disrespectful and stupid. But honestly, how many people are always complaining about law enforcement officers, ****ing and yelling at them because they wrote out a speeding ticket? Abuse from the public is something cops have to deal with and they know that from day one.

As well, I don't see what the gun has to do with the argument. Unless the guy is a convicted felon, which it is illegal for a felon to own a firearm, there's nothing illegal about his waving it around on the video. Now, if he directly threatened to use said firearm against someone (as in saying "I will kill so and so with this gun) it would be one thing, but I haven't seen anything to indicate that he did that. Also, if he made the video in a public place and he waved the gun around, there would be more basis for arresting him for public endangerment. The DA would have to prove intent, which until the crime is actually committed, is difficult to do.

Well now why would anyone want to kill hardworking Dockworkers? Dockworkers are our friends.
Now lawyers would've been a better hypothetical minority to designate.

Well the KKK is in the South and Philadelphia doesn't worry about the KKK.

Getting back to reality I think this is kind of amusing. If I were the cops I figured that half the charges probably won't fly anyways so I'd bust him just to piss him off and make him sweat even if I knew he wouldn't stay locked up. Like you said before, Youtube can't transmit a lead projectile but it can sure as hell get you some feed back one way or another in this case.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the constitution or that anything needs to be added or amended, but like many have already said: If you have the freedom to say something, doesn't mean you should.

I prefer, if you want to say something, be prepared to deal with the consequences. I say he can say anything he damn well pleases just as long as he's ready to accept that people won't necessarily be too happy with what he has to say.

That aside this is my final thought: If this guy called out a minority that you were in and you had the chance to legally bust down his door and take him in even if it wasn't for keeps, wouldn't you do it at least out of spite?

It makes me wonder if this guy made this video in hopes of pissing the cops off to the point where they would bust him. Then when he gets off, he can go to the media and talk more crap about the cops and how they abused his rights, etc.

I'd be a little concerned about the police officers involved. If he does get off, they could face reprimand or charges of abusing their authority.

Can this be considered "inciting violence" and if yes, is there a law against that over there?

The Klan hold rallies across the country, Philadelphia included.

Well you'd have to prove he actually incited violence, someone actually has to go out and do something I believe. If someone were to call out to start rioting and no one does it, he can't really be held for inciting violence when no violence occurred. I believe the majority of police murders happen while the officer is apprehending someone.

How is someone free to say something if they get punished for it by people acting on the authority of the city/state/nation? That's the very definition of not being free to say something. If the cops want to respond, they should respond in an unofficial capacity, just as everyone else has to do. The law doesn't exist to build character, and levy punishment on people you don't like.

This all reminds me of The Stranger by Camus. In that novel, the protagonist is put on trial for murder, and a good chunk of the trial focuses on how he never cried at his mother's funeral, instead of whether or not his actual crime warranted the death penalty. There's this odd mode of thought that has it that the law exists to harass bad people, instead of it existing to prevent bad things from occurring, and I just don't get it.

You keep saying the cops responded. They did not. The system responded.


You said the above earlier. But it seems obvious the cops had a warrant and were acting under the direction of the LAW.

Then you advocate vigilantism? Go figure.

If the cops weren't the primary agent behind the charges being filed, then fair enough, but most responses to this thread seem to have been made under the assumption that they were, and that such is justified. That's what I'm responding to.

Whoever granted the warrant wasn't thinking to much about the law, obviously, as you can't convict someone of assault for a video in which nobody gets assaulted. The validity of the other charges depend on the exact content of the video--as has been pointed out--but if one charge is complete nonsense, they all very well could be.

There are multiple ways to confront someone, and they don't all amount to vigilantism. That said, if cops (or any member of "the system") wants to get revenge on someone for a personal slight, then I'd rather they do so in a personal capacity.