Discussion: Feds Arrest Friend of Charleston Shooter Dylann Roof

TPM Article Topics
1

Discussion for article #240681

2

He also told the AP that he and Roof, who attended high school together,
had reconnected in the weeks before the shooting. Meek said that Roof
complained to him that “blacks were taking over the world” and spoke of a
“plan” after buying a .45-caliber Glock pistol with his birthday money.

Sounds to me like they’ve got a case.

3

If they’re going after him for not reporting the crime before it happened, that will be a tough case to make. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but before the fact, differentiating between a genuine plan and the bloviations of a loudmouth is pretty difficult. If he lied to investigators after the fact, that’s a different matter.

It amazes me how many people don’t know that you’re not required to talk to law enforcement at all. Unless they’re prepared to place you under arrest, they can’t “take you downtown” for questioning. And if you are placed under arrest, you say absolutely nothing except to acknowledge your identity and say, “I want to speak to an attorney.”

4 Likes
4

If that’s all they’ve got, I don’t think so. Stupid people spout off about things all the time. If those around them reported that kind of loud, boastful talk every time, the police would be completely overwhelmed.

1 Like
5

It is a difficult case to make, but lying to the investigators afterwards isn’t necessarily required.

There are 4 elements the state must prove:

  1. the principal actually committed the felony - check, they can prove Roof committed the crime
  2. the defendant had full knowledge of that fact - check also, he went to the authorities so he knew the crime was committed
  3. the defendant failed to notify authorities - greyer…we don’t know when or if he notified authorities
  4. the defendant took affirmative action to conceal the crime of the principal. - that’s the missing piece from this story. Lying to the investigators would definitely meet that criteria, but there are other steps he could have taken as well that would meet it.

Its the act of concealment that is the crucial piece in determining that final point. Just knowing about the crime isn’t enough, the government has to show that the defendant took action to try and conceal he had knowledge of the crime.

So, if someone spouts off in an instant message that they are gonna kill a bunch of black people, you aren’t guilty if you don’t go to the authorities…UNLESS you try to cover up that conversation, like say, deleting the message.

2 Likes
6

Regarding after arrest, it reminds me of my Criminal Procedure professor’s sage advice:

“If you are ever arrested, say two things - one out loud and one to yourself. Out loud - ‘I want my attorney.’ To yourself - ‘shut the F*** up, stupid.’”

3 Likes
7

My Constitutional Law professor gave us an equally useful bit of advice: “Never consent to a search.”

2 Likes
8

I recall reports at the time indicated more than one friend had been told about the plan in advance. I remember thinking they were pretty stupid to say that. It makes the investigation a lot easier.

1 Like
9

WaPo article about Meek and his family., published on the 12th. Interesting read:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2015/09/12/an-american-void/

2 Likes
10

Well, good lord and goddamn! I learned a new word!

MISPRISION: the deliberate concealment of one’s knowledge of a treasonable act or a felony.

Cool!

4 Likes
11

Well, he had a deeply held religious belief that it was God’s Will to shoot the ni(CLANG!) so it should be ok!

Just another example of Christian persecution.

12

Correct, without that they have absolutely no case. With that, they have a good case. Lesson - next time you say “yeah, he said stuff like that, but he’s an asshole and I did not take him seriously”. No legal problems there.

13

I do believe they are in trouble for not saying that initially, lying to investigators.

14

Mr. Meek is going to be a very rich man after the Feds either settle with him or they have an enormous damages award from a jury that heat this idiocy. Misprison of a felony is only reserved for someone who conceals information from Law Enforcement or other competent authority AFTER a crime has been committed. On top of that, the boy is going to be able to show that the Feds knew of the identity of Mr. Roof as a result of this young man’s call to law enforcement. I hope he saves his phone bill so he can show he made that call. And he did say to the AP that he had called them BEFORE they indicated that they needed the information when he saw Mr. Roof on the surveillance video.

This sounds suspiciously like the Feds dropped the ball BIG TIME and are looking to see if they can find someone who doesn’t know any better to hang the blame on. I am tempted to get my law license back current and volunteer to represent the boy for free in the criminal trial if I can have the tort case that will be hanging out there against the Feds.

15

Sorry! Same argument as I used before. Mr. Meek DID contact law enforcement BEFORE they indicated that they needed an identification of Mr. Roof. As for lying to investigators, from what I understand from the SC legal community, the boy said, Ï can’t tell you anything more than I told them on the phone." That isn’t lying to law enforcement, It is a clumsy agent who took the call from him BEFORE the crime and didn’t properly get all the information that was needed the Feds are now trying to CYA with this “case” so that they can cover-up their bungled investigation. It wouldn’t be the first time that Feds have bungled an investigation and managed to send an innocent person to jail, only to have the person released and a huge settlement paid to the victim of their misdeeds.

16

Yep. We heard that was as well. Same lines, just differnt folks.

17

All he did was identify him when the video was shown. If asked then if Roof had said anything, Meek apparently did not divulge all the information. That is what they are referencing. They “technically” have a case on him.

But as the article states, what they are more than likely doing is setting him up as a witness. Charges would be dropped if he fully cooperates. Don’t forget they want to show this was premeditated by Roof, that is a VERY important part of a murder conviction.

Had Roof been killed in a shootout, they would not be going after this guy because they would not need a witness.

18

He is not being charged with what he said to AP, he is being charged with what he did not say to investigators initially. That said, as the article notes, what they appear to be doing is making sure he fully cooperates with prosecutors. His testimony is very important to establish premeditation.

Also, it sends a message to people that if you know a nut with a gun who talks about killing people, not a bad idea to report it.