Oh jesus you naughty boy. Better luck next time.

[HopOnPop]

My position is that public ostracization and/or condemnation is an appropriate response for offending the public's sentimentalities. Any such condemnation would and should be apart from the legal system. The legal system should not involve itself even to give a literal slap on the wrist.

You are contradicting yourself here. Is there a typo? If not, I don't exactly understand what you are saying here? Can you give me a specific example of something you would consider appropriate in this case that demonstrates your own principle at work?

That is my real criticism - retaliating for offending the public is not something the criminal justice system should enter into.
Ofcourse, it goes without saying, I don't think "offending the public" should be regarded as a crime.

I think you are conflating two issues that need to be addressed separately
1) Is the DA retaliating... and
2) did this kid do something worthy of redressment by the legal system.

They need to be treated individually, and just because you (and I) sense that (1) is likely true, it should not cloud our thinking about (2).

I am contending, regardless of the DA's silliness, this kid is doing something wrong that needs some form of very minor legal redressment...and I cannot tell whether you agree with me or disagree with this point alone separate from the DA issue.

(....and getting to the main point you are perhaps getting at -- ultimately, if the alleged misconduct of the DA is provable, I agree that the DA's conduct would, and should, be justification to throw this case out altogether, regardless of whether the kid has done something wrong).

As for the "potential incitement of violence argument" - that is central to every attempt to curb freedoms. A similar argument is often made that women should not wear revealing clothes or go out at night lest they "incite" men to rape them. Better to nip all that in the bud and prosecute women who are out late or dress immodestly.

You paint with too broad of a brush. Simply because a tool can be used in a particular unfair way does not invalidate it use when applied in other ways. As a counter-example where (I think) this principle does work: it remains (generally) illegal for people to burn crosses in public, even if the display is on on their own private property, precisely because of its potential to incite intimidation/violence/etc among, and against, African Americans and other minorities. Do you think that is too much of a "curbing of freedoms" on cross-burners to justify such a regulation?