'Trump said I could': One possible legal defense for accused rioters

[Laura PourMeADrink]

https://www.chron.com/opinion/article/Trump-said-I-could-One-possible-legal-defense-15860797.php

Teri Kanefield and Mark Reichel
,
The Washington Post
Updated: Jan. 11, 2021 6:47 a.m.

Federal agents spent the weekend arresting people around the nation who were allegedly part of the mob that stormed the Capitol on Wednesday after President Donald Trump urged a crowd to "fight like hell" to overturn the election results. But many of those charged with crimes for their alleged roles in the riot can thus plausibly raise what is known as the "public authority" defense - arguing, essentially, that Trump gave them permission to do what they did.

Here's how it works. Suppose the chief of police in a town told you that you could ignore a "no parking" sign and park in an otherwise forbidden place. Suppose also that you relied on his word and parked in that place. Then, later, suppose a police officer handed you a parking ticket.

You'd have a defense. Specifically, you could point your finger at the authority figure who invited you to commit the illegal act. The spotlight then turns to the authority figure: Did the chief of police have the authority to waive the parking restriction? If not, was it reasonable for you to believe that he did? Did you have reason to know that you shouldn't park there, even if he told you that you should?

Each day, more evidence emerges that Trump and other elected officials instigated this riot. The rioters were lured to Washington with Trump's promise that the day would "be wild." At the rally, Rudy Giuliani - Trump's lawyer and close adviser - called for "trial by combat." Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala., told the crowd to "take names and kick ass." Trump told the crowd, "When you catch somebody in a fraud, you're allowed to go by very different rules."

More at link

[GeorgeGist]

1. Buffoonery.

[Towlie]

3. Buffoonery: "behavior that is ridiculous but amusing"? No, I don't think so.

 
?

Perhaps you should explain what you meant with that one-word post.

[GeorgeGist]

13. Sorry ...

Ridiculous. Happy now.

[VMA131Marine]

2. When has "just following orders" been a viable defense?

It didn’t work at Nuremberg.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

5. True, but it may be all they got? If hundreds use it, they all

get saved or they all go down?

[SheltieLover]

4. Then why are military folks subject to prosecution for carrying out illegal orders?

[Laura PourMeADrink]

6. Yes true. So, if hundreds successfully use this defense

in essence doesn't it prove Trump's guilt? As well as others in his inner circle?

[MoonchildCA]

7. Parking illegally is not a criminal offense.

If the chief of police told you to rob a store, and you were arrested for that, I don’t think you could use the same defense.

[bullwinkle428]

8. That "Shaman" character is already trying to use this defense.

[Wounded Bear]

9. Well, it worked for the NAZIs at Nuremburg...

Oh wait.

[Timewas]

10. No

No one can give someone else permission to break the law.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

11. But you can say anything you want as a defense, valid or not right?

[Timewas]

14. Somethings

Actually are not allowed to be used but I think they have to put it out there and a judge can decide whether to allow it or not

[Laura PourMeADrink]

12. Like what other defense do you have? Better than "I just felt

Like causing mayhem that day? "

[Timewas]

15. Probably

But I am not sure these people are capable of understanding that concept.

[NotASurfer]

16. That's an explanation for going to the Capitol to protest

If they want to trot out "Individual 1 told me to execute an armed coup and I only regret that I failed his orange munificence" as a legal defense...I guess when the leaky legal braincase on Guiliani's shoulders is the role model for organizing your legal defense, they'd have to go that route