legal questions about trump events

[tomp]

I'm not a lawyer, so I am asking very knowledgeable legal minds to comment on the events at trump political rallies.

1) is trump inciting violence in a prosecutable way? If so, thoughts on why he has not been charged (from a legal perspective, not a political one).

2) given that these are public events, is it legal to heckle to the point of disrupting the purpose of the event? Is this really covered under the first amendment? Can the organizers legally prevent the disruption of the event by protestors/have people forcible ejected?

Thank you.

[PoliticAverse]

1. 2) See "Free Speech Zone"...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone

Note that Trump is being protected by the Secret Service which by law is granted more control over
protestors, see: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr347 which was signed by President Obama and
this ACLU article on the bill: https://www.aclu.org/blog/how-big-deal-hr-347-criminalizing-protest-bill

[tomp]

6. i understand Trump's right to SS protection as a candidate.

I'm talking more about general protests and how they are handled, not people rushing the stage.

[jberryhill]

2. No and no

One is a no brainer - no he's not.

On point two, these are not public forums. With few exceptions, these are rented venues. If you rent a hall for a wedding reception, concert, whatever, it's up to you to decide who is allowed in or what behavior is permitted. Anyone who doesn't abide by that is a trespasser and can be thrown out.

Would you ask this question if your community theater group rented the fire hall to put on Hamlet?

[tomp]

4. ?

1) no brainer? really? i've actually got a working brain. could you please elaborate on how this is a no brainer legally?

2) I don't think Hamlet could ever be considered political in the general sense (let's not get into subtext). Does it matter legally?

[jberryhill]

8. Give me a specific example of a statement for #1

On number two, who cares if it is "political"? You rent a hall for your event and it is your event.

Exercise of religion is also a first amendment right. Go into some church today, stand up, start yelling at them about going to Hell or whatever, and see how long you last before you are removed.

You have a right to rent places, have functions in them, and decide who the speakers at your event are going to be.

[tomp]

10. heres the most inciting thing I've heard/read.

"If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them," he said. "Just knock the hell out of them. I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees."

Now, I see there is a condition of imminent threat by tomato, but....

And, why not direct security to remove them? Are the standards of behavior for the event clearly stated upon entry? Do Trump and his organizers, or even the pro-Trump crowd get to decide at the moment whether someone has violated some unspoken behavioral rule for the event?

[pipoman]

15. So you think someone has a right to throw things in a political rally?

Disruptors know they are disrupting.

There is no excuse for Trump's vile messages, the answer is to disregard the messages, not break the law throwing things or creating a public disturbance..."breech of the peace" is what some protesters are doing...

[tomp]

17. you're sounding pretty dense.

of course I don't think what you have ascribed to me (putting words in my mouth).

The question is: is it inciting violence to tell people to beat the crap out of them?

If you wish to have my attention on any further posts, please state your legal credentials and give legal opinion. My post clearly asks for "very knowledgeable legal minds."

Thanks

[pipoman]

19. No, it's not

I don't care if I have your attention or not. In case you didn't know, this is a public forum, you don't get to dictate....really anything...feel free to start a private chat room or facebook group...

[PoliticAverse]

3. As to 1) see...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

[tomp]

5. this stood out to me

"f one stops short of urging upon others that it is their duty or their interest to resist the law, it seems to me one should not be held to have attempted to cause its violation"

Again, not a lawyer, but it would seem to me some of Trumps speech crossed this line.

[Cheese Sandwich]

7. "Could Donald Trump be held legally responsible for inciting violence at his rallies?"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/11/could-donald-trump-be-held-legally-responsible-for-inciting-violence-at-his-rallies/

To us, observing from here with all of the examples above, there's a sense that Trump is creating an on-going environment in which he encourages violence. But that's not necessarily the experience of people at the rallies. They are unlikely to know all of the times that Trump has disparaged protesters or embraced the idea of attacking them, Walz notes. "How do I know unless I go to all the rallies or watch them?" What's more, the campaign's announcement helps it defend against the insinuation of embracing violence. "I'm sure they're doing that so that, a, so hopefully no one touches the protestors and, b, to cover themselves legally, because obviously that covers them to some degree," Walz said.

Now, all of this is considering criminal liability. Trump could certainly be sued in civil court. But, then, Trump could be sued for any number of things. Walz indicated that he didn't remember any example of incitement charges during his time as a prosecutor -- in part, no doubt, because the law tends to err on the side of freedom of speech.

There's little question that Donald Trump is comfortable with the idea that protesters encounter a physical response; he's said as much repeatedly. But criminal charges always demand a higher bar, and, in this case, the expert with whom we spoke thinks that Trump is in the clear.
...

They play a disclaimer announcement at the start of the rallies. Weird:

On Dec. 12, the campaign began playing an announcement at the start of campaign rallies. "If a protester starts demonstrating in the area around you, please do not touch or harm the protester," an announcer states. "This is a peaceful rally." When it was played at a rally in Feb., a reporter noted that the audience laughed.

On Feb. 1 of this year, Trump says that his security team told him someone in the audience was preparing to throw tomatoes. "If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them," he said. "Just knock the hell out of them. I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees."

[sofa king]

9. My thoughts.

I was a paralegal, who is the person who does the actual work in a law office. My opinion:

1) Yes, Trump is inciting violence. Yes, it could easily be prosecutable at any level from local to federal, depending on each jurisdiction's laws and practices.

HOWEVER, at the federal level prosecutors are deliberately reigned in from prosecuting Presidential candidates while they are running. This is why at least three Republican candidates appeared to be running to escape federal indictment: Trump (taxes), the Other Dumb Guy from Texas (don't remember), and The Fat Guy with the Bridge. (Don't want to step on any toes but this is also why the HRC email scandal will not go anywhere this year.)

2) Heckling and disruption has usually been covered, within limits, especially at political events in the US. One F-word and it's over, though, as that usually qualifies as hate speech, and while the candidate is largely immune from the claim of inciting violence, the protester is not.

HOWEVER, any pretense of decorum in following the law was forever destroyed by George W. Bush, who shuttled protesters off to "free speech zones," which were really holding pens a quarter-mile from the event itself, where protesters were gathered, photographed, identified, and forever after watched until they could be personally ruined.

The bottom line is that there is no real rule of law in the US and the powerful will do what they will while the weak shall suffer what they must, to paraphrase Thucydides. Thus all of the above will work in favor of Trump but against Sanders, because The Man has already decided which way He wants all this to go.

[tomp]

11. thank you for the opinion.

And thank you for stating your credentials.

I was unaware of the proscription against prosecution of federal candidates. And I have understood for many years that the law ultimately serves power.

[sofa king]

12. Did I mention I'm a bad paralegal?

A good paralegal would provide you with the citation. I cannot. The best I can do is point out that Presidents do not decide who gets prosecuted; that is up to the prosecutor, and I can cite the Bush Administration as a compelling example of a hive of scum and villainy that was never prosecuted because they were always running--for or away from--something.

Recall Patrick Fitzgerald's doubletalk about "serving the public interest" by not volunteering to be first against the wall. That is the real precedent by which prosecutors will operate.

[pipoman]

13. well, not a lawyer, but this really only takes a civics class...

1. No.

2. No. Is what covered covered under the 1st amendment? Heckling? No, you don't have free speech most places. Absolutely...happens every day.

[tomp]

14. sorry, insufficient.

I'm looking for actual legal opinion.

but I appreciate your comments.

[pipoman]

16. You will have to hire a lawyer then...most internet forum lawyers are actually lunch ladies...

[tomp]

18. see above response to your other post.

please be civil, and if you don't have a legal opinion stay off a thread that is asking for one.

[pipoman]

20. I see...you can dictate who can speak in a public forum

But the donald can't? I'll bet you don't even see the irony....ridiculous

[tomp]

21. ignore. nt

[pipoman]

23. LOL

Made ya log out...lol

[ConsiderThis_2016]

22. If some person "Has Standing"... I say bring it.

I think the Brother in NC, that was sucker punched has a great case, and just like the lawyers always do, they should go after the deep pockets first. Trump paid for the event and invited people, he definitely has culpability. IMO

[PoliticAverse]

24. Civil liability would of course be different than criminal and would be easier to prove. n/t