I'm also wondering what the original charge was.
Ok, things like inciting a riot, threatening violence, encouraging murder, these are rightfully crimes. But I cant make any of these crimes fit the text given.
I guess the police did the right thing in finding out who it was and if they were likely to commit a shooting. But I still don't see why or on what charge he was arrested.
Now for the compare-and-contrast
example: a magistrate in Australia has allowed nine men (aged from their teens to 26) to walk free without so much as a conviction recorded against them, after gang-raping a
ten-year-old girl - on the grounds that she "agreed" to sex.
There is an outcry, and the sentences will probably be appealed. I bloody hope so.