Trump: Protesters Who Were Beaten Up By My Supporters Violated My Rights First

[panamaican]

And you can legally remove them with reasonable force in most cases.

If you entered legally and started trouble that lead to a fight that would be taken into consideration in any court action.

I agree you can't just have a bunch of people beat up people that are not fighting back.

However if you go to a private party just looking to start trouble don't expect much sympathy from people or even the court in most cases.

But nothing in the story suggests that they started a fight or any physical interaction. They spoke. Calling it "starting trouble" doesn't change the fact that there was no physically violent component to their protest.

And the argument that you're defending is this "People said something that interfered with what I was trying to say, therefore I am justified in being violent with them." Don't equate it with someone physically interfering with the speaker.

So, the question on that specific argument (since they're probably raising more conventional arguments as well) is this: If someone interferes with you speaking by speaking over you, do you have the right to initiate physically violent action against them - not for speaking but for speaking in a way that undermines your message?

Because that's the argument. Not that they protested and then refused to leave. But that the content of their speech justified initiating violence against them.

 

[jeffbeesdat]

It's a shit tier argument. It's based on the idea that you can't interfere with someone else's message by speaking. So conversation, debate, counterpoints, etc. are all legal grounds for beating people up, lol.

Your's is a shit tier comparison. You do realize that conversations, debates and counterpoints are not the same as trespassing on private property at a private event? You have no right to go to Trump's political rally with the intention of shutting it down, just like you would have no right of walking in to Barry O's office to disrupt an interview he is doing with 60 minutes because you don't agree with his policies.
Donald Trump has every right to say,"Get these people out of my event" just like Obama would have the right to say, "get these people out of my office.".

 

[panamaican]

Your's is a shit tier comparison. You do realize that conversations, debates and counterpoints are not the same as trespassing on private property at a private event? You have no right to go to Trump's political rally with the intention of shutting it down, just like you would have no right of walking in to Barry O's office to disrupt an interview he is doing with 60 minutes because you don't agree with his policies.
Donald Trump has every right to say,"Get these people out of my event" just like Obama would have the right to say, "get these people out of my office.".

There's no argument being presented that they trespassed. The argument is being made that their message interfered with Trump's message.

Did you read the OP? The legal argument is very specific - their anti-Trump message transformed Trump's message thus justifying the physical engagement. That is not a "trespass" argument.

 

[oldshadow]

But nothing in the story suggests that they started a fight or any physical interaction. They spoke. Calling it "starting trouble" doesn't change the fact that there was no physically violent component to their protest.

And the argument that you're defending is this "People said something that interfered with what I was trying to say, therefore I am justified in being violent with them." Don't equate it with someone physically interfering with the speaker.

So, the question on that specific argument (since they're probably raising more conventional arguments as well) is this: If someone interferes with you speaking by speaking over you, do you have the right to initiate physically violent action against them - not for speaking but for speaking in a way that undermines your message?

Because that's the argument. Not that they protested and then refused to leave. But that the content of their speech justified initiating violence against them.

I agree with the argument in the way you state here.

However they started a verbal argument with people around them when confronted.

To me it's like going to a sporting even and going to the other sides stands and start insulting the other team.

Should you be attacked for that, no.

However when others on the other side start talking shit to you when a pushing match starts the a fight starts where does the fault lie.

The same as if at your private parry your wife's ex shows up as a other with someone and starts loudly taking shit and insulting her.

Who's fault is it when shit happens

I agree the the proper thing is to remove them with ony the nessary force required.

 

[JosephDredd]

Typical on the left.

"I should be able to do illegal shit and there be no consequences because I'm right."

The difference between then and now is then they protested and if it was illegal they expected the consequences and even in cases welcomed them as part of the protest.

So you still don't understand the difference between private and public.

The expected consequences is removal and maybe a fine. Violence is not an expected or accepted consequence.

 

[JosephDredd]

Your's is a shit tier comparison. You do realize that conversations, debates and counterpoints are not the same as trespassing on private property at a private event? You have no right to go to Trump's political rally with the intention of shutting it down, just like you would have no right of walking in to Barry O's office to disrupt an interview he is doing with 60 minutes because you don't agree with his policies.
Donald Trump has every right to say,"Get these people out of my event" just like Obama would have the right to say, "get these people out of my office.".

That is literally what a protest is and has always been.

Obama has the right to say get them out of my office. He doesn't have the right to say, "I want to see him punched in the face. I want to see him taken out on a stretcher. If you attack them I will pay your legal bills." Because if they get attacked he may be in legal trouble for inviting violence. Trump has lost the first step of this legal battle because if what he said.

 

[JosephDredd]

And you can legally remove them with reasonable force in most cases.

If you entered legally and started trouble that lead to a fight that would be taken into consideration in any court action.

I agree you can't just have a bunch of people beat up people that are not fighting back.

However if you go to a private party just looking to start trouble don't expect much sympathy from people or even the court in most cases.

Any examples from the real world? Or are these legal precedents strictly from the sharp legal minds of Trump supporters?

 

[panamaican]

I agree with the argument in the way you state here.

However they started a verbal argument with people around them when confronted.

To me it's like going to a sporting even and going to the other sides stands and start insulting the other team.

Should you be attacked for that, no.

However when others on the other side start talking shit to you when a pushing match starts the a fight starts where does the fault lie.

The same as if at your private parry your wife's ex shows up as a other with someone and starts loudly taking shit and insulting her.

Who's fault is it when shit happens

I agree the the proper thing is to remove them with ony the nessary force required.

A verbal argument is not a justification for a physical response. Never has been unless the spoken words are threats that are going to be acted on. Nothing says that was what was happening here.

If you go back to the OP, the legal argument being made is very clear: The protesters speech transformed Trump's message thus justifying the physical response.

You can argue trespass and threat and disruption all day long but that's not what Trump's lawyers are arguing. They're arguing something very different.

This is an analogy: I hold an event to discuss the pros of dog ownership, someone legally in the crowd starts bad mouthing dogs. This transforms my pro-dog event into an anti-dog event. The transformation of my event now justifies me asking some random dude to punch them in the face.

You and I know that's not true. If I don't like their speech and they've legally entered the event then I have to remove them via the established protocol, not by inciting 3rd parties, who lack legal enforcement authority, to assault them.

 

[JosephDredd]

I agree with the argument in the way you state here.

However they started a verbal argument with people around them when confronted.

To me it's like going to a sporting even and going to the other sides stands and start insulting the other team.

Should you be attacked for that, no.

However when others on the other side start talking shit to you when a pushing match starts the a fight starts where does the fault lie.

The same as if at your private parry your wife's ex shows up as a other with someone and starts loudly taking shit and insulting her.

Who's fault is it when shit happens

I agree the the proper thing is to remove them with ony the nessary force required.

The courts are deciding if it's the political candidate encouraging violence over the loudspeakers. Which you keep leaving out of your little scenarios.

 

[oldshadow]

The expected consequences is removal and maybe a fine. Violence is bit an expected out accepted consequence.

It depends on what you go there to do.

If you go looking for a fight and get one then don't be surprised.

I don't believe peaceful protested should be beat up but removed and jailed if they 're on private property for trespassing if they give any restance to being removed.

 

[JosephDredd]

It would've been better than letting BLM push him around, and make him look like a bitch on the national stage.

I also just like picturing Bernie with a Trump attitude, because it's funny.

No, it would not. That is dumb. Its no wonder Trump connected to people who can't use ideas to get what they want.

 

[JosephDredd]

It depends on what you go there to do.

If you go looking for a fight and get one then don't be surprised.

I don't believe peaceful protested should be beat up but removed and jailed if they 're on private property for trespassing if they give any restance to being removed.

That's not what happened here. Loudmouthed political candidate encouraged people to attack the protesters and said he would protect them. The scenario that you're arguing did not happen.

 

[nostradumbass]

I call bull shit , how about pulling one of these countless posts that say " republicans suck " that garner " 20 likes"

I'm feeling nice so I won't ask to find multiples from the same poster or even two separate posters.

Homer Thomson has 30,000 likes and he seriously only posts gifs and memes. Kong dsnt tap has like 20,000 likes and hasn't made a single post that was anything other name calling. Don't care if you're feeling nice, there are your 2 separate posters.

 

[HomerThompson]

Your's is a shit tier comparison. You do realize that conversations, debates and counterpoints are not the same as trespassing on private property at a private event? You have no right to go to Trump's political rally with the intention of shutting it down, just like you would have no right of walking in to Barry O's office to disrupt an interview he is doing with 60 minutes because you don't agree with his policies.
Donald Trump has every right to say,"Get these people out of my event" just like Obama would have the right to say, "get these people out of my office.".

This entire post is, somehow, even more irrelevant than you are.

 

[oldshadow]

Any examples from the real world? Or are these legal precedents strictly from the sharp legal minds of Trump supporters?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplinsky_v._New_Hampshire

https://definitions.uslegal.com/f/fighting-words/

 

[HomerThompson]

Homer Thomson has 30,000 likes and he seriously only posts gifs and memes. Kong dsnt tap has like 20,000 likes and hasn't made a single post that was anything other name calling. Don't care if you're feeling nice, there are your 2 separate posters.

@ me next time, pussy.

Also, I destroyed your feeble "argument" last night. I'm sorry your intellect isn't what you wish it was, but here we are.

 

[JosephDredd]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplinsky_v._New_Hampshire

https://definitions.uslegal.com/f/fighting-words/

From your link:

Fighting words are not an excuse or defense for a retaliatory assault and battery.

 

[oldshadow]

A verbal argument is not a justification for a physical response. Never has been unless the spoken words are threats that are going to be acted on. Nothing says that was what was happening here.

If you go back to the OP, the legal argument being made is very clear: The protesters speech transformed Trump's message thus justifying the physical response.

You can argue trespass and threat and disruption all day long but that's not what Trump's lawyers are arguing. They're arguing something very different.

This is an analogy: I hold an event to discuss the pros of dog ownership, someone legally in the crowd starts bad mouthing dogs. This transforms my pro-dog event into an anti-dog event. The transformation of my event now justifies me asking some random dude to punch them in the face.

You and I know that's not true. If I don't like their speech and they've legally entered the event then I have to remove them via the established protocol, not by inciting 3rd parties, who lack legal enforcement authority, to assault them.

I can agree with this.

I believe I started drifting away from what was being brought up in the op into other things.

Trump did not have the right to encourage his people to attack people for just interfering with his speach if that is what he was implying.

 

[21 Savage]

It depends on what you go there to do.

If you go looking for a fight and get one then don't be surprised.

I don't believe peaceful protested should be beat up but removed and jailed if they 're on private property for trespassing if they give any restance to being removed.

This kid just forfeited his right to live for violating private property laws

 

[oldshadow]

From your link:

No but they can be used when fault is held in court if per my link they cause reasonable imtemadation.

If some is in your wife's face calling her a cunt and whore and you push them away and a fight starts the court will consider that.