According to Federal Law, “inciting to riot” applies to a person who organizes, ENCOURAGES, or participates in or carries on a riot. This includes, but is not limited to urging or INSTIGATING other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.

“SACRAMENTO SIMMERS WITH TENSION IN THE WAKE OF FATAL POLICE SHOOTING OF STEPHON CLARK”. Washington Post, Sawson Morrar, Wesley Lowery.

The Washington Post’s Wesley Lowery, is well known for his writings on the subject of police shootings of unarmed, young, black men.  His first book, “They Can’t Kill Us All : Ferguson, Baltimore And A New Era In America’s Racial Justice Movement”, as well as a Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting for compiling the Post’s “Fatal Force” database have brought him some notice. He is obviously a man with a clear mission in his mind. The death of Stephon Clark fits perfectly into Lowery’s profiling of police overreach and excessive force.

Lowery’s article quotes the mother of Clark’s two son’s (ages 1 and 3) explaining how they will miss him and how his younger son, to whom he’d given a miniature toy pony the child likes to pretend riding,  just celebrated his first birthday. While not understanding how a one-year-old could be able to play in that fashion, it is certainly a tear jerking mental picture.

Still, there was/were the report(s) of a guy breaking out car windows, etc., so the police responded. Clark was shot and killed. Was this a justifiable shooting? Would Clark have been considered, by a reasonable adult, to have been an immediate threat to the lives of others? Did the police fear for their lives or the lives of other human beings at the moment? *This is currently under investigation.

Lowery’s article also includes information from a neighbor, Rose Guido. “These bars went up because people tried breaking into my home,” Guido (70) said. “He was doing a wrong thing, but police did not have to fire their weapons.” “They should have given him more warning.” “The police were too aggressive.” “They could have shot him in the leg if they had to. It’s ridiculous.” Was Clark actually doing what Guido implies? *This is currently under investigation. Note: It isn’t within police protocol to shoot suspects in the legs, (which can also be fatal).

National civil rights attorney, Benjamin Crump said he is working with Clark’s family. Crump had previously represented the families of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, (two other unarmed, young black men who were fatally shot.) Crump stated, “The family is devastated.”,  and referred to Clark’s shooting as an “execution”.

Demarcus Cousins and Matt Barnes, (two Sacramento Kings basketball players), have offered to pay for Clark’s funeral.

At this point, it might be correct to point out that In Lowery’s book mentioning Ferguson and Baltimore and in Crump’s history with the families of Trayvon Martin (Miami Gardens) and Michael Brown (Ferguson), there were no convictions of officers or, in Martin’s case, George Zimmerman (a neighborhood watch coordinator). What did occur were mass demonstrations and riots *prior to the completion of investigations and resolutions of court cases against those persons the demonstrators deemed criminally responsible for the deaths of people, (people who didn’t present a serious threat to life and limb). The courts were privy to information many of the protestors didn’t have and in which they had little or no interest. Acquittals made no difference because those judgments didn’t fit the narrative.

So…is Wesley Lowery guilty of INCITING TO RIOT? I don’t know. I’m not a lawyer. I do believe he’s guilty of INSPIRING TO RIOT (probably not technically a criminal offense…again, I’m not a lawyer).

But you don’t have to be a lawyer to know this is just another example of how the media seems hell-bent upon creating news rather than just reporting it. Waiting to learn the facts is too great a risk, because those facts might not fit the narrative. *This is not under investigation.