Sheriff's Office considering charging Trump

[Tarheeler]

http://www.fayobserver.com/news/cri...cle_931d06ee-3ece-5235-b235-a8db182d4a65.html

The sheriff's office in my home town (the site of his NC rally) has already charged his supporter who hit a protester as he was being taken out by police. Now they are looking at whether or not Trump's actions constitute inciting a riot.

This could certainly make the race for the Republican candidacy a lot more interesting.

 

[RRex]

I don't understand how Trump incited a riot. Did he tell people to start fighting?

 

[Sunstone]

Was Fayetteville before or after Trump called on his supporters to rough up protesters at his rallies, and said he'd pay for their lawyers if they did that?

 

[Tarheeler]

I don't understand how Trump incited a riot. Did he tell people to start fighting?

Under NC law, a riot is "a public disturbance involving an assemblage of three or more persons which by disorderly and violent conduct, or the imminent threat of disorderly and violent conduct, results in injury or damage to persons or property or creates a clear and present danger of injury or damage to persons or property".

One who has encouraged such action, either through words or action, can be charged with inciting a riot (which is a misdemeanor unless the damage to property exceeds $1500 or there is serious injury).

If the Sherrif's Office believes the rhetoric at his rallies have created such an environment, they can charge him.

 

[RRex]

Hmm. Do you think he stirred up his fans more than any other speaker in a public venue?

 

[Sees]

Doubt it will go anywhere...usually if it has a chance there will be action instead of barking.

Is there a link to Trump's actual words that are suspect?

 

[Sunstone]

Hmm. Do you think he stirred up his fans more than any other speaker in a public venue?

Yes. Or do you have any examples of other candidates who are as surrounded by controversial violence as Trump is?

 

[Sunstone]

Is there a link to Trump's actual words that are suspect?

Long article on Trump and violence, complete with quotes of Trump calling for protesters to be roughed up.

For instance:

“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.”

 

[RRex]

Yes. Or do you have any examples of other candidates who are as surrounded by controversial violence as Trump is?

No, not at all. I've never watched him, so I don't really know what he is up to.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't understand how Trump incited a riot. Did he tell people to start fighting?

According the the link in the OP....

The law states that only a "clear and present danger of a riot is created" is needed for a person to charged with the misdemeanor.

This is so broadly worded that case law would be needed to interpret when it would be applied.
Otherwise, it would appear that any Trump rally could be reasonably expected to result in a riot.
Thus, protesters could use this broad culpability of the candidate as a tactic to shut down rallies.
We'll see if he's charged, & if the charges stick...or whether it's just more politicing.

 

[RRex]

Trump is quite the phenomenon.

It will be interesting to see him as President. It might also be disastrous.

At least he doesn't take any crap.

 

[Tarheeler]

Was Fayetteville before or after Trump called on his supporters to rough up protesters at his rallies, and said he'd pay for their lawyers if they did that?

After. He said it in Cedar Rapids, Iowa on Feb 1.

And he's looking at paying the legal fees for the supporter in Fayetteville who hit the guy.

 

[Sees]

Long article on Trump and violence, complete with quotes of Trump calling for protesters to be roughed up.

For instance:

That is pretty good stuff. The big thing is - it will always depend on what he said directly to the specific people at the specific event where X happened. The tomato throwing crap and things like it are really insignificant because you can ask whoever you wish to protect you, supporters, friends, etc. from assault.

The campaigns on a whole are so sad now - cheesy reality shows brought to life.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

As a Cruz supporter, there is some attraction in this for me, but in the US you need to pass a very high bar to bring a case of incitement of violence. You literally have to be doing something like standing at the head of a mob and screaming at them to burn down the building in front of you.

Yes. Or do you have any examples of other candidates who are as surrounded by controversial violence as Trump is?

To be fair, he is only responsible for the violence of his own supporters (indeed, only some of them). They have been violent, but the bulk of the recent violence was not from his supporters but from a leftwing rent-a-mob. The mainstream media and left-liberal politicians do bear some responsibility for constantly ignoring hard left intimidation, disruption, and violence and trying to shift the blame onto victims of it.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

I think Charles Krauthammer describes the two distinct issues involved here well:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...king-and-nodding-urging-fans-rough-protesters

There is the issue of the disregard for free speech and differing views from the hard left, given a free pass from the mainstream media, seen from university campuses to these sorts of protests. The other is Trump's own baleful behaviour. In Chicago, it must be said, the former had a much larger role in causing trouble than the latter did.

 

[Sunstone]

To be fair, he is only responsible for the violence of his own supporters (indeed, only some of them).

Indeed, he is responsible -- since it's he who incites them. But I've never said otherwise.

They have been violent, but the bulk of the recent violence was not from his supporters but from a leftwing rent-a-mob.

I'm sure you're just throbbing all over to provide actual evidence in support of your wacky notion. Go for it!

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Many of those who ask for evidence don't really want it. Let's hope that is not the case here.

I already posted plenty of evidence in the other thread:

http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/trump-rally-cancelled-in-chicago-amid-protesters.185471/

But you only had to pay attention, and not just take the MSM headline at face value, and it was obvious. The course of events seems to have been that things were reasonably peaceful before the cancellation of the rally (presumably because the protestors wished to get in), despite clear attempts to get close to the stage and at times to get on it. When the event was cancelled then the problems started, mostly fuelled by the protestors, who tried to block the exits and to generally intimidate Trump supporters.

As the AP put it:

Outside, the tenor of hours long protests shifted when one protester passed on word of the cancellation through a megaphone on the campus of the ethnically diverse University of Illinois at Chicago. The crowd roared in delight and began chanting: "We stopped Trump! We stopped Trump!"

The protesters closed in on the building, obstructing most of the exits just as Trump supporters began filing out. The Trump supporters had little choice but to push through the anti-Trump crowds that parted only slightly, yelling, "Racists go home!"

"I think it's a great thing that happened," Sierria Coleman, a 28-year-old graduate student, said about the cancellation. "To have (the Trump rally) at this school, for what this school stands for, is disrespectful."

Trump supporter Bill Vail said he walked through a gauntlet of protesters who cursed at him as he pushed through holding his 9-year-old daughter's hand. She cried, he said.

"They scream about tolerance, but are being intolerant themselves," Vail, 43, of the Chicago suburb of Oaklawn, said. "That doesn't make sense."

Hours earlier, Trump supporters and opponents stood calmly in a line together waiting to get inside. Police horses and barricades kept the bulk of the demonstrators across the street. Trump opponents were protesting what they called his divisive comments, particularly about Muslims and Mexicans. Dozens of UIC faculty and staff had petitioned university administrators to cancel the rally, citing concerns it would create a "hostile and physically dangerous environment."


Tensions outside rose only after news of the cancellation spread

At one point, nearly 20 officers who had been manning barricades suddenly bolted for an intersection across a street bridge over a freeway — where protesters shouted at and jostled with police already there. An officer was seen walking from that intersection with blood on his head. A police spokesman said later that he couldn't provide details.

There were some other isolated physical confrontations among members of the crowd. Five people were arrested overall, Chicago police said.

The express purpose of the protest leaders was to shut down the event. Obviously, they knew that wouldn't happen simply by waving placards respectfully. This is all nothing new. Leftwing rent-a-mobs often operate like this, from college campuses to anti-G8 protests. It happens in Britain and Australia and other nations as well as the US. And the mainstream media usually gives them a pass. In Australia, hard left student protestors tried to mob, if not attack, government ministers on campuses these last view years. Very little was said about it. If the protestors had been rightwing, then their would have been a national crisis. The authoritarian tendencies of the hard left are more a cause of concern than a few off-hand comments from Trump about protestors infiltrating his events, as silly and baleful as these were.

 

[Sunstone]

Many of those who ask for evidence don't really want it. Let's hope that is not the case here.

I already posted plenty of evidence in the other thread:

http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/trump-rally-cancelled-in-chicago-amid-protesters.185471/

But you only had to pay attention, and not just take the MSM headline at face value, and it was obvious. The course of events seems to have been that things were reasonably peaceful before the cancellation of the rally (presumably because the protestors wished to get in), despite clear attempts to get close to the stage and at times to get on it. When the event was cancelled then the problems started, mostly fuelled by the protestors, who tried to block the exits and to generally intimidate Trump supporters.

As the AP put it:



The express purpose of the protest leaders was to shut down the event. Obviously, they knew that wouldn't happen simply by waving placards respectfully. This is all nothing new. Leftwing rent-a-mobs often operate like this, from college campuses to anti-G8 protests. It happens in Britain and Australia and other nations as well as the US. And the mainstream media usually gives them a pass. In Australia, hard left student protestors tried to mob, if not attack, government ministers on campuses these last view years. Very little was said about it. If the protestors had been rightwing, then their would have been a national crisis. The authoritarian tendencies of the hard left are more a cause of concern than a few off-hand comments from Trump about protestors infiltrating his events, as silly and baleful as these were.

There seems to be nothing in the AP press account that you quote to support your apparently speculative conclusion that "The express purpose of the protest leaders was to shut down the event. Obviously, they knew that wouldn't happen simply by waving placards respectfully." To support your conclusion, you reference generalities about "Left Wing rent-a-mobs" and such, but provide no hard evidence -- actually, you don't even provide soft evidence -- that any alleged leaders of the Chicago protests encouraged violence. And then you wonder why people don't swallow your "evidence" and draw the same wild conclusions as you do!

 

[Sunstone]

This Video Shows Just How Differently Obama And Trump Confront Protesters

Quite an informative minute long video.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

There seems to be nothing in the AP press account that you quote to support your apparently speculative conclusion that "The express purpose of the protest leaders was to shut down the event. Obviously, they knew that wouldn't happen simply by waving placards respectfully." To support your conclusion, you reference generalities about "Left Wing rent-a-mobs" and such, but provide no hard evidence -- actually, you don't even provide soft evidence -- that any alleged leaders of the Chicago protests encouraged violence. And then you have the nerve to wonder why people don't swallow your "evidence" and draw the same wild conclusions as you do!

I didn't say the evidence for that was in that one report. Where did I suggest that? I specifically noted I posted plenty of evidence. Why would you think all of my claims were all in that one report, then? That seems a self-serving and silly presumption. Perhaps you should read all evidence before making foolish, knee-jerk retorts. Just an idea, my throbbing friend.

You only have to read the claims of the protest leaders, such as Black Lives Matters, some of which I quoted in the other thread, to see they admit their motivation was to shut down Trump's rally. And, obviously, they didn't mean to do this just by singing a few hymns from a respectful distance.

The generalities you are referring to is the systematic actions of hard left radicals. You seem to think a few off-hand comments by Trump are important, but not years of increasing disregard for free speech and differing opinions from the exact sort of groups involved in these protests.

I noticed your skipped over the fact my wacky notion about who originated the disruption and violence seems, on the available evidence (and it was obvious to anyone looking past MSM headlines), to be correct.