Ask John Kerry About the Skull and Bones and Get Tasered !

Inciting a riot? I think not!

All law is precise and inciting a riot is legally defined (i.e., Florida Penal or Criminal Code or statutes).

The student did not advocate anything to the crowd to violate any laws or to disrupt the peace (order) and no evidence exists. Statutes cannot be construed to imply matters not spcifically defined or pointed out.

While his conduct was contemptuous, insolent, and disorderly, he clearly did not incite a riot.

Riot is legally defined as: "The term "riot" means a public disturbance involving (1) an act or acts of VIOLENCE by one or more persons, which act or acts shall constitute a clear and present danger of, or shall result in, DAMAGE or INJURY to the property of any other person or to the person of any other individual or (2) a threat or threats of the commission of an act or acts of VIOLENCE by one or more persons part of an assemblage of three or more persons having, individually or collectively, the ability of immediate execution of such threat or threats, where the performance of the threatened acts or acts of VIOLENCE would constitute a clear and present danger of, or would result in, damage or injury to the property of any other person or to the person of any individual. Title 18 U.S.C. sec. 2102(a).

Inciting a riot is defined as: Incitement to riot is by words or conduct URGING others to commit acts of FORCE or VIOLENCE against persons or property or to resist the LAWFUL authority of law enforcement officers under circumstances which produce a clear and present danger of injury to persons or property or a breach of the public peace. SOURCE: Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed.

If the Florida University student knew his stuff in the area of law he'd have a hell of 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983 suit against his torturers. It's IMPOSSIBLE for the cops or the district attorney to PROVE with evidence that the student was inciting a rioting. They could never prove every element required of the offense "inciting a rioting." NEVER!

He could also never be accused of "obstructing officers in carrying out their duties" or "resisting arrest" as the officers were not carrying out any duties and were simply on guard (standing watch), plus, he was not placed under lawful arrest in the first place in order to be resisting arrest. An arrest must be lawful in order to resist it.The arrest is based upon "inciting a riot" and I just proved that he in fact did not do that. Lawful arrest down the drain for law enforcement!

People should always argue the law as it is defined (codified) and not worry about dumb law enforcement officers who are trained robots (Robo-Cops) in most cases, who don't know law, only procedure. There are very few legally cops out there. Most are societal rejects with ego problems who need to flex their pseudo authority for self-gratification purposes.

Cops are just as ignorant to law as the masses of dummified Americans. That's why situations like the above can and will occur in this country-corporation.

I sympathize with the young student. This is what people do in college. He's clearly in his 3rd chakra years (age 14-21) and this is where our principles develop, where our political views are shaped, where we decide what we will stand for in life.

The United States is just a totalitarian state! The Rulers have won! Americans are subjects of renegades and despots. Period!

Peace!