Picture a stereotypical street fight between two parties. A large crowd forms around the fight to watch. I don’t know anybody involved in this I just passed by and decided to watch. During the fight as a joke I yell KILL HIM, but then soon enough one fighter actually kills the other one.
Once police show up and take witness statements and somebody mentions right before the fatal blow someone in the crowd yelled KILL HIM, could the police track me down and arrest me for a crime? Incitement? Threats?
Traditionally, encouraging another to commit a crime is called “solicitation”. (If solicitation results in an agreement, it becomes “conspiracy”).
For example, in Florida, the statutes say, in pertinent part
(The defense, of course, is that the OP’s encouragement was incidental to the attack - he didn’t actually cause it to start, and his cheering didn’t cause it to escalate)
Interestingly enough, in response to widespread protests during the last year of the Trump administration, the state of Florida passed a law with enhanced punishments for rioting and inciting violence.
Since a riot is defined as three or more people, and results in injury to “another person”, is it possible that the OP would be the third person making up this “riot”, and would the injury of the other participant count as “another person”?
(I think the “other person” arguably refers to somebody not involved in this 3 person riot, meaning an innocent bystander)
Joke isn’t the right word, but there is this sort of thing were people exaggerate for effect. Though I would associate that more with something more over the top, like “murder him” or even things like “destroy him” or “mutilate him.” But, still, I’ve heard people use “kill” as hyperbole.
I myself stay away from that sort of talk for precisely the ideas mentioned here, BTW.
Surely you can imagine some sort of context where it would be intended as a joke?
You’re outside a bar, everyone is a bit drunk. It was a lot of fun attending a Mortal Kombat themed party. Two guys face off in the car park and start sparring; it doesn’t look serious at all. Even though there isn’t really a fight yet, you yell “FINISH HIM!”. Everyone chuckles. That’s the thing from the thing. One of the guys immediately lunges at the other and gets him in a headlock, which breaks his neck and kills him.
Real life story. Once, when I was a young man, I was saying goodbye to a friend of mine and his girlfriend. They were leaving on a motorcycle with his girlfriend on the back. As a joke, I said the following;
Me: Bye, y’all be careful out there.
Me: Actually Justin, I don’t care if you kill yourself, just make sure Alexis (his gf) don’t get hurt.
Them: ha ha!
And two days later Justin was killed in a motorcycle accident.
(c) Is a party to a conspiracy with another to commit it or advises, hires, counsels or otherwise procures another to commit it.
This was a subject to an in-service training we had about 4 years ago. There was a case where a guy at a party told another guy that a girl he liked was in a bedroom passed out and he should have sex with her before she wakes up. Both ended up being convicted of sexual assault and party to a crime sexual assault and the convictions stood up on appeal.
[Moderating]
While “joke” might not be the right word, I think we can nonetheless imagine situations where a shout to “kill” someone might not be meant in earnest. Let’s proceed from the assumption that the OP is talking about such a situation, without quibbling whether “joke” is the right word.
OK, so imagine a scenario where there is a fight, but it is interpreted as ‘horsing around’ by the bystander who yells out the joking instruction to kill.
That particular law is subject to a statewide preliminary injunction since September or October. But the definition of “riot” hasn’t substantively changed since the Supreme Court of Florida used the common law definition in State v. Beasely, 317 So. 2d 750 (1975).
The term “riot” is not defined in the statute and, therefore, the common law definition must be applied. Fields v. State, 85 So.2d 609 (Fla. 1956); Smith v. State, 80 Fla. 315, 85 So. 911; See 77 C.J.S. Riot § 1 a, pp. 421-422. The term “riot” at common law is defined as a tumultuous disturbance of the peace by three or more persons, assembled and acting with a common intent, either in executing a lawful private enterprise in a violent and turbulent manner, to the terror of the people, or in executing an unlawful enterprise in a violent and turbulent manner. 1 Hawkins on Pleas of the Crown 513 (8th Ed. 1824); Ballantine’s Law Dictionary 1121 (3d Ed. 1969); Black’s Law Dictionary 1490 (4th Ed. 1968); Salem Manufacturing Company v. First American Fire Insurance Company, 111 F.2d 797 (9th Cir. 1940).