• Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version.

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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 429137
  • Start date Start date
D

Deleted member 429137

Guest
https://lawandcrime.com/trump/trump...up-by-my-supporters-violated-my-rights-first/



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


President Donald Trump now claims, by way of his attorneys, that protesters at one of his 2016 campaign rallies violated his rights by protesting.

Those protesters were later allegedly battered by Trump supporters after Trump shrieked for their removal. The protesters are currently suing Trump for incitement to riot.

In legal filings made this week, Trump’s lawyers say he couldn’t have violated the protesters’ rights by calling for his supporters to assault and remove them from the venue–because those protesters violated Trump’s rights first. One motion reads, in relevant part:

In this case, Plaintiffs interfered with the Trump Campaign’s freedom to ‘choose the content of (its) own message. Thus, by interjecting this anti-Trump speech in the middle of a pro-Trump rally, they were obviously transforming the message that Mr. Trump and the Campaign wished the event to convey.


The motion was filed as part of a dismissal request made Trump’s legal team in response to a lawsuit brought by multiple protesters who were violently removed from a Trump campaign rally in Louisville, Kentucky in March 2016. At that campaign rally, then-candidate Trump screamed: “Get ’em out of here!”

A federal judge allowed the protesters’ lawsuit to proceed earlier this year after Trump’s stable of attorneys unsuccessfully argued their client was protected from liability by the First Amendment.

In his April order allowing the suit, Judge David Hale wrote “It is plausible that Trump’s direction to ‘get ’em out of here’ advocated the use of force. ‘Get ’em out of here’ is stated in the imperative; it was an order, an instruction, a command.”

Now, after their initial failure at reigning in the protesters’ claims, Trump’s attorneys are trying an even more novel tactic: arguing that two perceived wrongs can, in this case, make a right. The motion defends Trump’s incendiary order-instruction-command as necessary. It reads:

Mr. Trump had every right to call for the removal of the disruptors. Any contrary rule would destroy the right of political campaigns to express their messages at rallies without being sabotaged by intruders.


This argument relies on no known legal doctrine.

I'm looking forward to all the keen alt-right legal eagles confirming that Trump is always right.
 
If they were on private property he had every right to have them removed by reasonable force.

So the only question is if whatever force was used was reasonable.
 
Sorry, what's the complaint? They were trying to sue Trump because they got beat up by people he's never even met because he said "get them out of here" to security? If you're on the hook for everything your voters do, pretty much every politician in history is in some deep shit.
 
The way i look at it, everybody takes a beating sometimes. No reason to cry.

 
Sorry, what's the complaint? They were trying to sue Trump because they got beat up by people he's never even met because he said "get them out of here" to security? If you're on the hook for everything your voters do, pretty much every politician in history is in some deep shit.

Do you remember when he encouraged violence and said he would pay the legal defenses for anyone arrested beating up protestors?

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-trump-campaign-protests-20160313-story.html
 
That's what Trump was talking about and said he was looking into that incident with the old guy.

By the way in that case they worked it out for the best.

http://wncn.com/2016/12/14/trump-su...ed-at-rally-hug-in-court-vow-to-heal-america/

Maybe read the entire article instead of stopping after a piece that will let you scamper back here to defend Trump.

But at a rally with Sarah Palin last month in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Trump encouraged a few thousand supporters to beat up anyone who hurled a tomato at him, saying security had warned him that might happen.

“If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you?” Trump said, drawing cheers and laughter. “Seriously, OK? Just knock the hell — I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise. I promise. They won’t be so much, because the courts agree with us too — what’s going on in this country.”

On Sunday, he defended the remarks in the NBC interview.

“If you get hit in the face with a tomato, let me tell you, with somebody with a strong arm, at least, let me tell you, it can be very damaging,” he said.

...

At a casino rally in Las Vegas last month, Trump pined for “the old days” when demonstrators would be “carried out on a stretcher, folks.”

...

“I’d like to punch him in the face,” he told the Las Vegas crowd when one protester was ejected.
 
Ah yes, a variant on the ever popular, "I know you are, but what am I?" defense.
 
Maybe read the entire article instead of stopping after a piece that will let you scamper back here to defend Trump.

If you start to assault someone and get you ass kicked I don't see a problem here.

Trump is not my favorite person by a long way but some of the stupid shit people on left come up with is crazy.
 
Back
Top