W.VA. teen arrested after "almost inciting riot"

[Dotini]

When I was a kid, there were no such things as tee-shirts with slogans or such on them. All clothing had the labels on the inside.

Since then, I've let my hair down and wear tee-shirts that say "Indy 500" or have an image of a bear or eagle on them. Pretty racy, huh?

 

[Zenith]

And gosh darnit if my teacher told me to strip and jump into a pit of used needles I'd do it.

 

[Dotini]

And gosh darnit if my teacher told me to strip and jump into a pit of used needles I'd do it.

That's a bit much. I've had my mouth washed out with soap in grade school, and was paddled, too. No harm done. I'm probably better for it.

 

[Nicksfix]

Why do you assume it's verbal abuse? The article only says that the teacher "raised his voice".

Okay, so verbal abuse may not have been the proper word that I should have used ... sorry. Let's just say the teacher raised his voice to a level in which it got the school cafeteria's attention. As by your statement :

If I have a class of thirty fourteen year-olds, they can - and regularly do - get a bit noisy. And the noise tends to escalate, as students talk louder and louder to be heard over one another.

So, in order for you to make your point known, you have to elevate your voice a few octaves to be heard ... correct ? As far as a lunch period is concerned, you would have to raise your voice enough octaves to get an entire school cafeteria's attention. Which the teacher did. You as a teacher have to know that a cafeteria generally consists of more than 30 students. School size pending, amount of students at lunch this particular period would be a rather large audience. During this point in time, lets call it 60 (pulling a number out of the air) kids talking, chatting, just doing what kids do during a lunch period. This elevated voice by the teacher would have to had been rather voicetrous, wouldn't you say ? Voicetrous to the point where it would appear that the teacher would have been almost shouting. Therein lies the part where maybe, just maybe where we are sensing that the teacher could have been shouting, or being quite voicetrous.

So how do you know that the teacher was yelling at the student for promoting gun ownership?

Why else would have this confrontation taken place ? Yeah, it's about gun ownership and the 2nd amendment. Something that this teacher obviously has a problem with. Look at something here, would you ? This kid made it 4 periods of school without incident. He hits the cafeteria for lunch, and wallah, teacher confrontation takes place. Now, there is something dreadfully wrong working against this teacher. As just noted by myself (and others in this thread), why all of a sudden is there an issue ? I'll tell you why. It's because this teacher obviously does not know the dress code as stated by the Logan County School District. Had this been a problem, the 1st period teacher would have caught this t-shirt incident right off the bat ..... right ? Let's flip the coin. We'll say that the teacher does know the dress code. The t-shirt in question (once again ... starting to sound like a broken record) does not in any such manner violate the posted dress code. So with the teacher knowing this, why else would he confront the student about this shirt ? Hmmmm, anti gunner, and has a hard on against guns would seem to be the logical answer.

Only that if the teacher saw an image of a high-powered assault rifle on a student's shirt, then you can understand why he might believe that the image of the gun - and the image of the gun alone, as I said in the above post - would be violent imagery, and therefore in violation of the dress code.

Therein lies the problem. By your own admission, you have stated the the gun in question (AR15) is an "assault rifle". It is not an assault rifle. There is no reason in the world to believe that such a gun promotes violent imagery. It's a semi automatic .223 caliber hunting rifle for Gods sake ! Not some sort of fully automatic weapon that is capable of mass extinction of humans with one pull of the trigger. The problem with your statement (and I'll not condemn you for your lack of knowledge on guns), is that too many people see this image the wrong way. Hence why I suggest that this teacher in question is un-educated in the ways of guns and sees them as a piece that promotes violence. Whether it be in real life, or in this case, on a kids t-shirt. It's just plain outright wrong to assume such things without knowing the full story / or being educated about guns.

Be that as it may, the school's dress code only specifically banned students from wearing articles of clothing displaying images of violence. It gives no further definition of what qualifies as violence. Therefore, an images of a gun could easily fit into the definition of a violent image.

And so could cars and baseball bats.These have been known to kill people. So now we have to say that a kid cannot wear a t-shirt with a picture of a car, or a baseball inspired shirt that may display a bat. Where does it stop ?

If the teacher felt the image of a gun was a violent image, then he probably thought he had a case to ask the student to remove it.

Key word in bold. The teacher did not think, that's the problem. The teacher being well aware of the dress code did not think. Or, the teacher did know the dress code and acted out of order... take your pick. Either way, it's a strike against the teacher.

And he was arrested because he refused to ignore an instruction from a teacher, which led to unrest in the cafeteria. Common sense dictates that the smartest course of action for the student would be to follow the teacher's directions, and then follow up on it with the school's principal or deputy instead of making a spectacle in the cafeteria.

Who started the specatacle in the cafeteria ? The teacher did, that's who. Common sense dictates that the teacher should have handled this matter in adult way, not in front of XXXX amount of students in the cafeteria.

The teacher no doubt felt that whatever the type of weapon or ammunition used, it represented an image of violence.

Only in the said teachers mind.

Let me ask you this: if a kid brought a 20" AR15 chambered in .223 to school, what do you think the teachers would do? Would they stop and question him about the type of weapon an ammunition, and let him keep it because it is used for shooting vermin? Or would they call the police straight away?

Honest to God, I can't believe you could consider posting such a thought.

The teacher in question evidently felt that this was in violation of the school's dress code, and so asked the student to somehow obscure or remove the image

Lack of knowledge on the teachers part. It's his/her job to know the dress code. This teacher in question is dead wrong, simply because he/she did not know the code.

Rubbish.

This is a child who got in trouble for doing something, and then decided to try and get out of it. That's all there is to it.

Let's start fresh here. In your own words, what did the kid do wrong ? He did nothing, he stood up for his rights, but yet you say that is wrong.

the kid deliberately disobeyed an instruction from a teacher

The kid deliberately stood up for his 2nd amendment rights in which the teacher has a problem with.

Again, you're assuming that the teacher a) raised his voice in anger and b) confronted the kid over making a political statement he disagreed with. But there is no evidence of this.

On the first page of this thread, I provided a link that clearly states that video proof shows that the teacher was in the wrong. Unfortunately, we don't get to see that video.

Video evidence in the case, Mr. White said, indicates that the situation in the cafeteria deteriorated when a teacher raised his voice while confronting Jared

​

It's far more likely that the teacher asked him to cover up the image, and the kid said no because he was being belligerent

Wouldn't you stand up for your rights if you knew that you were well within them ?
​

If a teacher asks a student to do something, and it is a reasonable request, then it is generally expected that a student will follow through on it.

Key word, reasonable, this was not, sorry.

Asking a student to cover up an image on a t-shirt that a teacher feels violates the dress code is not an unreasonable request.

Once again, the teacher failed. He/she did not know the dress code. Which gives them no reason to imply their personal version of the dress code.

Actually I would say a 14 year old cannot "successfully and consistently make adult decisions". A 14 year old is not an adult. In the eyes of American law a 14 year old cannot make the adult decisions required to do such as driving a car or consuming alcohol. Its not just about experiences or knowledge either. A 14 year old's brain is not going to function the same as an adult brain.

True, do a degree. However, wouldn't you say that a 14 year does indeed know the difference between right and wrong. This kid felt he was in the right, which by rights, he was.

Some words by Jared and his father :

 

[Grayfox]

No Comment means "We know we did something stupid and have no excuse"

 

[prisonermonkeys]

So, in order for you to make your point known, you have to elevate your voice a few octaves to be heard ... correct ? As far as a lunch period is concerned, you would have to raise your voice enough octaves to get an entire school cafeteria's attention. Which the teacher did. You as a teacher have to know that a cafeteria generally consists of more than 30 students. School size pending, amount of students at lunch this particular period would be a rather large audience. During this point in time, lets call it 60 (pulling a number out of the air) kids talking, chatting, just doing what kids do during a lunch period. This elevated voice by the teacher would have to had been rather voicetrous, wouldn't you say ? Voicetrous to the point where it would appear that the teacher would have been almost shouting. Therein lies the part where maybe, just maybe where we are sensing that the teacher could have been shouting, or being quite voicetrous.

The article only says that the teacher raised his voice enough to attract the attention of a group of nearby students. There is nothing that says the teacher raised his voice so that the entire cafeteria could hear him, at which point an awkward silence descended and everyone heard the teacher launch into a tirade. Going by the article, the teacher raised his voice, which caught the attention of a few students. When the student with the shirt refused to follow the instruction, the nearby students started chanting, and that is what got the attention of the entire cafeteria.

But even if your theory is true, and the teacher rised his voice such that the entire cafeteria heard him, we still don't know what was actually said. Was the teacher laying into this kid because the teacher didn't believe in gun ownership? Or was he raising his voice because the student had defied him when asked to hide the logo?

Furthermore, why were the students supporting the kid? Was it because they recognised that his rights were being trampled on? Was it because the teacher worded his instruction poorly (ie "take the shirt off!")? Or was it because they sensed trouble and decided to add fuel to the fire?

Key word, reasonable, this was not, sorry.

Okay, let me show you a similar situation that has popped up in a school that I have taught in. This is only a similar situation; it's not intended to be a substitute. I'm just curious to hear your thoughts on the matter when politics aren't involved.

Lately, this school has had a problem with energy drinks. There have been instances of kids guzzling three of them at recess, and then disrupting classes when the active ingredients kick in. The school has decided that it wants to crack down on this, banning energy drinks, and attempting to remove images of drink logos from the school.

One day, you arrive in your classroom for homeroom, and you see a student wearing a hat carrying the logo of an energy drink company. He is not one of the students who caused trouble when he had too many of them and although the school has a dress code, this is mostly limited to students wearing a school shirt and an appropriately-coloured pair of pants. There is nothing about hats. Nevertheless, it contains an image that the school does not wish to have promoted.

You ask the kid to take his hat off. He refuses, saying "it's a free country". What do you do next?

Once again, the teacher failed. He/she did not know the dress code. Which gives them no reason to imply their personal version of the dress code.

When the dress code is so vague, it is open to interpretation. As I said, images of guns could fit one teacher's definition of violence, but not another's.

We still haven't even established if the teacher raised his voice to the student because he was opposed to gun ownership, or if the teacher raised his voice to the student because the student was being belligerent.

 

[Nicksfix]

Was the teacher laying into this kid because the teacher didn't believe in gun ownership? Or was he raising his voice because the student had defied him when asked to hide the logo?

Unfortunately, we really do not know this bit of information. The only true source that knows this info is the video camera that filmed it. Again, it was stated in the article, Jared did nothing wrong, which in turn points the finger at the teacher. We just (for now, until the true video is released) have to take the word of this person who has seen the video first hand. Once the video is released (if it gets released), then we may pass judgement as far as who did what, who said what.

Furthermore, why were the students supporting the kid? Was it because they recognised that his rights were being trampled on? Was it because the teacher worded his instruction poorly (ie "take the shirt off!")? Or was it because they sensed trouble and decided to add fuel to the fire?

It's a tough call. It's one of those 6 of one and a 1/2 dozen of the other. Perhaps a blend of all three. I'll honestly say that I doubt all of the cheering students knew about the rights being trampled on. Perhaps a percentage, but what that percentage that is, I personally do not know. Nor does anyone else for that matter. I've a tendency to believe that it was a better part of the latter two.

Okay, let me show you a similar situation that has popped up in a school that I have taught in. This is only a similar situation; it's not intended to be a substitute. I'm just curious to hear your thoughts on the matter when politics aren't involved.

Lately, this school has had a problem with energy drinks. There have been instances of kids guzzling three of them at recess, and then disrupting classes when the active ingredients kick in. The school has decided that it wants to crack down on this, banning energy drinks, and attempting to remove images of drink logos from the school.

One day, you arrive in your classroom for homeroom, and you see a student wearing a hat carrying the logo of an energy drink company. He is not one of the students who caused trouble when he had too many of them and although the school has a dress code, this is mostly limited to students wearing a school shirt and an appropriately-coloured pair of pants. There is nothing about hats. Nevertheless, it contains an image that the school does not wish to have promoted.

You ask the kid to take his hat off. He refuses, saying "it's a free country". What do you do next?

If the school in question has not made it officially documented that they are negating any forms of advertisement of the product, then there is not a thing they can do about it. Nothing, zero, zilch, zip, notta. Once it's on paper/in the books, made a school rule, then and only then, will the school have a right to enforce this.

Since there is nothing about hats in the dress code, I as a teacher would keep my mouth shut to the student. Why stir up crap ? However, I would bring it up to the Superintendents attention that since this school is banning energy drinks, that all forms of advertisement supporting this product would be banned, up to and including any hat that would support this product. We would not ban the hats in general, but just the ones sponsoring the said product.

Once again, this all has to be documented, made a school rule before any type of enforcement can be instituted upon a kid.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Again, it was stated in the article, Jared did nothing wrong, which in turn points the finger at the teacher. We just (for now, until the true video is released) have to take the word of this person who has seen the video first hand.

The problem is that we only have the word of the lawyer to go on. And as the kid's lawyer, he is naturally going to represent events in such a way that the favour his client. So we've really only got the kid's word for it, spoken through his lawyer.

If the school in question has not made it officially documented that they are negating any forms of advertisement of the product, then there is not a thing they can do about it. Nothing, zero, zilch, zip, notta. Once it's on paper/in the books, made a school rule, then and only then, will the school have a right to enforce this.

Actually, there is one thing that you could do: you can ask the kid to take his hat off inside.

Also - and I should have mentioned this when I wrote the scenario up in the first place, but I kept getting interrupted - although there is nothing on paper, both students and parents have been made away that energy drinks are banned in the school, and that anything promoting them will not be tolerated. It just hasn't been listed as a school rule, the way the uniform code dictates what colour pants are acceptable.

 

[BobK]

Did I say that?

No, I did not.

Did you answer the question?

No, you did not.

You stated earlier that even if the teacher is wrong to order a student to do something, the student should do as told then afterwards take it up with the administration. So do you stand by that, or are you now refuting it?

No, it's a straw man argument intended to discredit my point by offering an extreme scenario that no-one can possibly support.

This from the person who earlier in this thread equated wearing a T-shirt with yelling "Fire!" in a theater.

If a teacher asks a student to do something, and it is a reasonable request, then it is generally expected that a student will follow through on it.

So you've added a new condition there. However, "reasonable" by whose definition?

Asking a student to cover up an image on a t-shirt that a teacher feels violates the dress code is not an unreasonable request.

The student obviously felt it was an unreasonable request. In addition, the student was not "asked to" do anything, he was (from the article) "told to remove the shirt or turn it inside out".

However, deliberately defying that teacher an inciting other students to cause trouble could be considered an unreasonable reaction.

Of course there is no support for that whatsoever in the article, unless attempting "to engage the teacher in debate" is deliberately defying. One could presume that refusal to immediate comply with a teacher's orders is "deliberately defying" the teacher.

Other students' attention was drawn to the situation when the teacher began to raise his voice. There is no indication in the article, one way or the other, that the student did anything whatsoever to incite any of the other students.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Did you answer the question?

No, you did not.

And I explained why I did not. It was because you deliberately created a scenario which no-one could reasonably disagree with. You didn't prove anything by doing it.

Of course there is no support for that whatsoever in the article, unless attempting "to engage the teacher in debate" is deliberately defying.

Please. "Attempting to engage the teacher in debate" is hardly a defence, since it can apply to any reaction the kid gave, ranging from "I'm not going to obscure the logo, because I support this political cause" through to "Why should I do what you say!?".

There is no indication in the article, one way or the other, that the student did anything whatsoever to incite any of the other students.

Except for the way he defied a teacher's instructions. I can speak from experience where I have asked students to stop performing a particular behaviour, and their friends immediately rush to their defence, even when that behaviour needed to be stopped because it was dangerous.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Once again, the responsibility for creating this entire incident rests solely with the teacher. You don't have to have a sociology Phd to know you don't go to a cafeteria, in front of all of his peers, and ask the kid to take off the t-shirt. He's a teenage boy for God's sake, and all that comes with that. This is something that should have been handled in private. The second the teacher thought about raising his voice, at a teenage boy, in a cafeteria, he should have used some common sense, got out of there, and taken this private later in the day.

The teacher should have known better than to handle it like this. One can only speculate as to why he chose to do it in this fashion, and all that speculation does not favour the teacher in any way.

Using the "fire in a theatre analogy", let's assume there's a fire in the lobby. Do you:

1. Run into the theatre screaming, "There is a fire in the theatre, get out as fast as you can!!!!!"
2. Do you walk calmly to the front of the theatre and with some sense of urgency but no panic announce, "Ladies and gentlemen, we need you to immediately move towards the emergency exits to your right."

This teacher chose option 1. In any confrontation between an adult and a child, the far greater burden will always rest with the adult.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

This teacher chose option 1.

Once again, I find myself asking: how do you know that?

 

[Tornado]

Please. "Attempting to engage the teacher in debate" is hardly a defence, since it can apply to any reaction the kid gave, ranging from "I'm not going to obscure the logo, because I support this political cause" through to "Why should I do what you say!?".

And why are either of those responses (particularly the second, which is presumably the "wrong" one) unacceptable? There's obviously going to be resistance to being told what to do at that age, especially if you don't give a reason for it.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Who says no reason was given?

The teacher could have said "I'd like you to cover up the logo, please, because I think it goes against the school's dress code" and the kid responded with "Why should I do what you say!?". So here is the teacher, giving an explanation for why he asked the kid to do something. And the kid responds by demanding to know why he should follow the teacher's instructions at all. Not this specific instruction, but any instruction given by the teacher.

See, that's the problem with this thread. We've only got the kid's side of the story. And it's human nature for people to remember things in such a way that they are the victim. But because he's said "I was denied my rights", everyone automatically assumes that he is in the right. The teacher in question hasn't had any opportunity to offer his own account of what happened (at least not in public - he would have explained his role in the episode to the school, and that explanation would go on record).

 

[BongRipz]

So no 14 year old, ever, would be able to do this?


On the whole. But this isn't a hard truth. Turning 18 makes you a legal adult, but it does not mean someone who is 18 is automatically better at making decisions than someone who is 14. You can jumble the ages quite a bit and that would still probably hold.

I never said a 14 year old couldnt, I just gave you the reason why a 14 year old cannot do it consistently. The problem seems to be, atleast in America, that we expect these kids to mature faster then they probably should be. You cant just expect these kids to handle things like adults when they arnt there yet in their development.

My point is, it's better to look at things on a case by case basis than making assumptions.

I do agree with you on that though I still say there was no reason to call the Police over insubordination without any sort of threats of violence. When I was in school this is how things were generally handled. We did have police in my school but unless you had drugs or a weapon they only took you to the Principle's office. Even fights were generally handled without the Police being called.

In my opinion if this isnt something the school's Principle (or whoever hands out the discipline) cannot handle and the faculty needs to involve the police then that person needs to be fired. If I was this kid's Father I would do whatever I could to make sure that happened.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Once again, I find myself asking: how do you know that?

I thought my anology was pretty clear. Instead of a nice, quiet, private, non-confrontational conversation in the office with the student, the teacher chooses to confront the student, in front of dozens of his peers, in the cafeteria. That's the "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" part of the analogy. Analogy's aren't literal by the way so please don't use the "are you equating this with that" argument, it's old.

 

[Zenith]

Who says no reason was given?

Because there are no valid reasons.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Instead of a nice, quiet, private, non-confrontational conversation in the office with the student, the teacher chooses to confront the student, in front of dozens of his peers, in the cafeteria.

Once again, your theory hinges on the idea that the teacher confronted the student because the teacher did not believe in gun ownership. However, you have no way of knowing that happened, other than because the kid said it did.

 

[Zenith]

Another awesome straw man.

The teachers opinions on gun rights are irrelevant, only a likely motivation for his wrongdoing. He told a student to change his shirt for invalid reasons, the student did the right thing stood up for his right to express himself, the teacher/school wrongly had him arrested, the student is suing the school for valid reasons.

 

[Joel]

Once again, your theory hinges on the idea that the teacher confronted the student because the teacher did not believe in gun ownership. However, you have no way of knowing that happened, other than because the kid said it did.

It doesn't matter why the teacher confronted the student. I understand that a teacher has a responsibility to keep students from promoting violence, but the shirt he was wearing wasn't promoting violence any more than a Ferrari shirt promotes street racing. It all just screams of "guns are bad mm'kay". The teacher's motivation doesn't change how silly it was to tell the student to cover up/turn the shirt inside out in the middle of the cafeteria in front of the whole school.

It might be tactful to obey a teacher's command, but that doesn't mean it's right.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Once again, your theory hinges on the idea that the teacher confronted the student because the teacher did not believe in gun ownership. However, you have no way of knowing that happened, other than because the kid said it did.

A completely invalid assumption, I said nothing of the sort in either of my posts above. Where do you get this stuff from? What I said was, the teacher chose the wrong time and place to deal with this, I don't care what his motivations were, good, bad or indifferent.

It doesn't matter why the teacher confronted the student. I understand that a teacher has a responsibility to keep students from promoting violence, but the shirt he was wearing wasn't promoting violence any more than a Ferrari shirt promotes street racing. It all just screams of "guns are bad mm'kay". The teacher's motivation doesn't change how silly it was to tell the student to cover up/turn the shirt inside out in the middle of the cafeteria in front of the whole school.

It might be tactful to obey a teacher's command, but that doesn't mean it's right.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

What I said was, the teacher chose the wrong time and place to deal with this, I don't care what his motivations were, good, bad or indifferent.

The kid refused to follow a direction when he was asked to by the teacher in the cafeteria. What makes you think he is going to follow a direction from a teacher to have a conversation in place away from all of the other students?

 

[Zenith]

Not sure if serious...

 

[Joel]

The kid refused to follow a direction when he was asked to by the teacher in the cafeteria. What makes you think he is going to follow a direction from a teacher to have a conversation in place away from all of the other students?

Come on.

Because "can you please come to the office" is a reasonable request. "Turn your shirt inside out" in this scenario is not.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Not sure if serious...

It is getting harder and harder to tell.

 

[nobuffalo]

It's pretty simple, really. All we know is the student wore a shirt that the teacher deemed to be against dress code and when asked to remove or cover it up the student refused. Neither are grounds for an arrest. Defending the arrest of a 14 year old (or anyone, really) under these kinds of circumstances is just crazy. The proper way to have handled the situation would have been to send him to the principle's office where his parents could have been notified and told to come pick the child up had he continued to refuse to remove the shirt. Only if the kid is threatening physical damage to property or other individuals should an arrest be necessary and even then there could be some leeway.

In my opinion, an administration that handles a situation like this is a crap administration and one that needs to be fixed.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Because "can you please come to the office" is a reasonable request. "Turn your shirt inside out" in this scenario is not.

That's your opinion.

Prove to me that the kid would have considered the instruction to accompany the teacher to the office to be "reasonable". If he wanted to have lunch, he could well have considered any instruction to leave the cafeteria to be unreasonable.

I've had students claim that my asking them to stop talking and start doing their work as they are suposed to be is an unreasonable request. And why? Because they don't want to do their work.

 

[Nicksfix]

Actually, there is one thing that you could do: you can ask the kid to take his hat off inside.

Given the scenario you asked me, I would not even do that. Just let it go, as to not start the slightest possible confrontation.

Also - and I should have mentioned this when I wrote the scenario up in the first place, but I kept getting interrupted - although there is nothing on paper, both students and parents have been made away that energy drinks are banned in the school, and that anything promoting them will not be tolerated. It just hasn't been listed as a school rule, the way the uniform code dictates what colour pants are acceptable.

Understandable, no problem. Agreed with the rest of your post.

Question for you prisonermonkeys. With you being a teacher, if this were you in this given case about this NRA t-shirt wearing kid. How would have you handled it ?

Lets assume that you are well aware of the dress code, but yet you are an anti gun proponent. Would you approach this kid, or would you just let it be ? Would you approach this kid because you thought that the t-shirt in question was a borderline dress code violation ? Would you be confident enough in your decision to approach him, knowing that you may be treading on thin ice ... infringing on his rights and freedom of expression and possibly violating any school bylaws ?

Just curious. I'm trying to get a teachers prospective on this since we can't get one from this school in question. Thanks.

Which brings up another question .... why has the school in question here not yet made any response on this case ?

Are they buying time for something ? Are they dotting their I's and crossing their T's in preparation of the time when they do decide to voice their opinion ?

Are they embarrassed by the fact that they know their teacher was in the wrong and just don't want to face any public ridicule ?

 

[nobuffalo]

Prove to me that the kid would have considered the instruction to accompany the teacher to the office to be "reasonable".

Was he ever instructed to go to the office? Prove to us that he wouldn't have.

 

[Lucas]

"Almost incited a riot".

One of the last times someone took action based on what he believed was about to happen, five men died while other seven survived, all of them innocent.