Can Trump be held Liable in Civil Court or even Criminal Court for his violent rhetoric

[FreakinDJ]

"Punch him, I'll cover the legal fees"

"They should be carried out in a stretcher"

"In the good ol' days they would be punched in the mouth"

He is clearly and directly advocating for, and even directing the manor in which violent acts are carried out in his rally's.

Would hate to see the jerk acquire a police that would ruin his life. But would settle for seeing him bogged down with a couple dozen more Civil cases

[elleng]

1. That's difficult to prove,

so not likely.

[FreakinDJ]

2. Its on tape

[elleng]

4. 'Causation,' between the speech and any violent acts,

is what's difficult to prove, not that he said all the crap.

[FreakinDJ]

7. I don't beleive a jury would find that a difficult stretch

and the publicity it would generate plus Trump's reaction would be a bonus

[elleng]

8. The publicity, of course, is what would make a fair jury decision difficult;

difficult to find a jury un-tainted by publicity. Like it or not, juries are required to decide based on evidence presented a trial.

[jberryhill]

22. Then why did you ask for opinions?

Can you please specify the state or federal criminal statue you are talking about?

[democrattotheend]

3. At the very least, I would argue that it is not constitutionally protected speech

It is probably explicit enough to qualify as incitement to violence, which is not protected.

If someone gets hurt who was following his advice, I would think he could be held responsible.

* None of my opinions on here constitute legal advice. Probably goes without saying but I want to make sure I follow ABA ethics rules.

[FreakinDJ]

5. The very least Civil Lawyers could and would file suits

[democrattotheend]

10. Lawyers can't just file suits; they need a plaintiff who has standing

Hopefully the man who was physically attacked the other night will sue. If I lived/were licensed in Illinois I would be itching to take that case. I am sure there are plenty of lawyers in Chicago who would take it.

[FreakinDJ]

13. Even if the RNC settled to make it go away it would be worth it

$2.5 Million for the Sanders Campaign

Heck that would make Trump Sanders Super PAC contributor

[backscatter712]

18. That's what I'm thinking.

That gentleman who got sucker-punched deserves some legal representation.

[elleng]

6. Ditto, rule-wise!

[napi21]

9. I seriously doubt any suit would succeed. Freedom of Speech is a very, very broad statement

that has been upheld in all of our courts for years.

[democrattotheend]

11. Incitement to violence is not protected speech

It has to be explicit to be unprotected, but I think there is at least a plausible argument that at least #1 on the list of Trump's statements crossed that line.

[jberryhill]

23. Please name the criminal statue you have in mind

Since you are confident of the illegality of the speech involved, would you mind identifying the state or federal law in question?

[democrattotheend]

24. Whoa, chill out

I never said his speech was necessarily illegal. I said that one of the three statements listed on this thread probably was not constitutionally protected because it is a direct call to violence. Look up a case called Brandenburg v. Ohio.

I am not licensed to practice law in Illinois, and I don't know whether his words violate a particular criminal statute. But I believe that if he were sued by the person who was attacked at his rally the other night, if he could demonstrate that Trump's encouragement and promise to pay the attacker's legal bills influenced the attacker, Trump could probably be held responsible and the First Amendment would not provide a defense.

If Illinois has a statute that criminalizes incitement to violence and the statute is sufficiently narrow to cover only actual inducements then such a statute probably would not be unconstitutional as applied to Trump's encouragement to punch someone and promise to pay legal bills.

[jberryhill]

28. Trump wasn't even there

Trump did not say anything to the people at that event, such that one could even make out an imminent incitement of anything, even if we were talking about some actual statute in Illinois.

[democrattotheend]

29. Are we talking about the same event?

I thought that at a rally before the one that was canceled, someone was attacked during the speech and Trump said "punch him. I'll pay your legal bills." Am I conflating two separate incidents?

[jberryhill]

32. Get the quote, identify the event

He said, at an event:

"if you see someone getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them... I'll pay your legal fees."

Was anyone punched while preparing to throw a tomato at that event?

That's what makes these threads a waste of time. If someone wants to say:

Trump said X
at event Y
and then Z happened at that event

Where X=Z, then we'd at least have a rational starting point for a meaningful discussion.

[LiberalElite]

12. I'm not a lawyer

and I don't play one on tv but it looks like this SC decision may apply: Brandenburg v. Ohio

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

snip

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is directed to inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action.[1] Specifically, it struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence. In the process, Whitney v. California[2] was explicitly overruled, and doubt was cast on Schenck v. United States,[3] Abrams v. United States,[4] Gitlow v. New York (1925), and Dennis v. United States.[5]

snip

[FreakinDJ]

14. I'll pay the legal fees - "likely to incite, imminent lawless action"

Good catch but I would want to see what was actually said to determine what qualifies

Some one saying "possibility of "revengeance" against ****** and **** " is a very long way from "I'll pay the legal fees"

[drray23]

15. some of his statements fell in that category

For example he said to his supporters to immediately beat the crap out of anybody who is going to throw tomatoes at him. That a direct incitement to violence.

[jberryhill]

26. So?

Did anyone at the event where that statement was made, proceed to beat up anyone about to throw a tomato?

[ConsiderThis_2016]

16. IMO...

The black man in NC who was a guest in Trumps house, and was hit by another Trump guest... has standing. If your a guest aka passenger in someones automobile and become injured in a crash, it's your right to recover for injuries sustained. The award would most likely be awarded based on all parties contributory actions on a percentage basis.

[backscatter712]

17. Let's look up Brandenberg v. Ohio:

That particular SCOTUS case states that speech advocating violence may not be punished, EXCEPT, when it passes the "imminent lawless action" test.

1. The speech must be made with the intent to incite illegal behavior.


2. The speech must be likely to produce such action.

So, watch Drumpf at one of his Nuremberg rallies, when he's ranting about protesters. He straight up tells his followers to "knock the crap" out of a potential protester, and promised to pay the legal fees.

Is it intended to incite illegal behavior? Well, we can't read Drumpf's mind, but he seems to elucidate his thoughts pretty clearly here.

Is it LIKELY to incite illegal behavior? Well, there hasn't been just one incident where protesters were treated roughly at the hands of angry Drumpfheads. There were multiple incidents where people have been punched, shoved, had their signs and clothes ripped from them, where these protesters have received threats of violence, been called racial slurs, etc. etc. fucking etc.

So, in my view, Trump intends his speech to promote violence, and just based on what's happening in his plain sight from the podium, he knows damned well that actual violence is very likely to happen when he eggs it on. This passes the muster of relevant Supreme Court case law, so I would suggest that what he's been doing is NOT protected by the First Amendment.

My verdict: PROSECUTE HIM.

[FreakinDJ]

21. Thanks - I thought so

[Manifestor_of_Light]

31. I agree with you. Immediate incitement to violence.

Likely to incite violence. I am a lawyer but am not practicing law. Your analysis looks good to me of Brandenberg v. Ohio. Civil suit looks good. Possibly criminal as well.

[Vattel]

19. No

[stevenleser]

20. I would be interested to see one of the attorneys on DU answer this.

jberryhill, msanthrope and Colgate4 are all attorneys. I will PM them and direct them to your OP.

[jberryhill]

25. Here's what's wrong with this class of threads

Over the years, the standing DU Grand Jury on "locking up people for things they say" has put away Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, the Westboro Baptist Church, and a host of others.

By now, we'd need a special prison for it.

Typically, these discussions are not based on reference to any criminal statute in any jurisdiction whatsoever, which would permit a review of cases under such a statute.

Also, typically, people will refer to Brandenberg v Ohio, as if that case defines whether or not some form of speech is or isn't "illegal" in some sense. Brandenberg struck down the Ohio state law in question, so nobody is going to be convicted of any crime under the statute in question in Brandenberg. The relevant passage that gets frequently quoted, does not define some kind of "illegal speech", but it points out a type of situation which could be subject to an appropriately narrowly drafted law.

Lawyers are not walking encyclopedias of every state and federal law on a particular subject. They do have training in finding them, looking up cases decided under those laws, and applying a synthesis of those cases.

And that brings us to the other problem with this general class of threads - what facts are we talking about? Nobody ever puts a specific statement and a specific result together in the same room. For example, a while back Trump said to one crowd:

"So if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them"

Okay, so, a week later, someone punches a non tomato-throwing protester being removed from a different Trump rally.

Does what Trump said about "if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato" a week earlier have jack shit to do with someone punching someone who wasn't throwing s tomato a week later? No. Not only does his statement have nothing to do with what happened, but it wasn't even said in proximity in either time or space to what happened.

So, if someone would like to put together:

(Trump said X) + (at a place and time) + (where Y happened) + (in a jurisdiction where the relevant statute is Z)

...then there's at least the nub of something a lawyer might have an opinion about.

But these threads are no more meaningful that the Freeper wet dreams of locking up Al Sharpton for going to places like Ferguson and Baltimore and, in their minds, "causing riots".

The notion that any jurisdiction in the US is going to start locking up political candidates because of things they say - even really rotten things - is just stupid. There are countries which regularly arrest and detain political candidates for "inciting" this or that - Uganda's recent elections are a good example.

Frankly, the regular calls on DU for locking up people with whom we disagree are embarrassing.

[democrattotheend]

27. I am also an attorney

I want to be clear that this is just my off the cuff opinion and does not constitute legal advice.

My belief based on what I remember from Con Law is that the first statement is probably not protected by the First Amendment because it is a direct inducement to violence, which is generally considered unprotected speech. The other two statements are probably too vague to constitute incitement to violence and therefore would be protected by the First Amendment. However, the fighting words and incitement doctrines are pretty narrow, so it is possible that even the first statement might be considered protected.

[jberryhill]

30. On the first statement

If we are talking about:

"punch him, I'll pay the legal fees"

Assuming that is an accurate quote from a particular event, it would apply to the place and time and person in question. It doesn't mean that if some other person a week later gets punched, that what he said a week ago about someone else has anything to do with it.

But what I've seen is:

"if you see someone getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them... I'll pay your legal fees."

And then at some other place and time, someone punches a person not engaged in throwing tomatoes.

So, we don't even have a definite set of facts to analyze under any particular statute.

[msanthrope]

33. Have to agree with jberryhill on this one...

There isn't really a criminal statute that applies here.

However.....there's some damn interesting anti-Klan statutes in the Illinois lexicon that Glenn Greenwald failed to defend nazi Matt Hale from. He lost a civil case to CCR...in part because of his ineptitude, but also because Hale incited a shooting spree. I'd start looking there, and see what applies.

A blast from the past...describing the case I reference....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002101211

[COLGATE4]

34. I doubt it.

Let me add to the excellent explanation JBerryhill has already given on this question. The major difference between Civil and Criminal actions is the burden of proof. In criminal cases the prosecution has the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt - a very high standard. In civil cases the burden is much lower - You only need proof by a preponderance of the evidence, a much lower standard. It's often referred to as the "51% standard", i.e. if 51% of the proof goes one way, that side wins.

Taking your examples, starting with the best one first:

"Punch him, I'll cover the legal fees" : In a criminal action, doubtful. It would have to be shown that the speech and the action were directly connected, both in terms of timing and in terms of communicator and communicatee. That is to say that if Trump had directly said those words to a given audience member and that member had then immediately punched a demonstrator you might be able to meet the burden of proof. Otherwise, I doubt it.

In a civil action, a little closer call but you'd still need to show the nexus between words and actions, i.e. that the actor was directly and immediately responding to Trump's urging. Don't think you'd win on that one, either.


"They should be carried out in a stretcher" . No. No direct nexus between the statement and the action. Not really the type of urging that can get you in trouble.


"In the good ol' days they would be punched in the mouth" No. No nexus at all between the statement and the action. Just a comment on historical practices.

Trump is treading a fine line between inflammatory rhetoric and actionable conduct but it appears clear that he understands where the line is and is probably too smart to cross it.

[backscatter712]

35. Yep. Good point.

A civil case should actually be fairly easy to win, given the footage that's on video. Trump didn't say these things once, but multiple times. And violent incidents haven't happened just once, but multiple times, IN TRUMP'S PRESENCE. A criminal case will be much harder due to the burden of proof. I don't think it should have to be an absolutely direct linkage between inciting speech and acts of violence. The inflammatory speech, including direct requests for violence, in an audience that is well known to be full of enraged people who have shown in words and deeds that they may be willing to do it, is enough.

I think all of the protesters at Trump rallies who have been assaulted, shoved, threatened, called racial/ethnic/misogynistic/homophobic slurs, or otherwise mistreated should file a class-action lawsuit against Donald Trump.

In civil court, it shouldn't be too hard to win. In at least one statement on video, he directly asked his audience to assault protesters, saying he'd cover the legal fees.

[COLGATE4]

36. It's called "puffery". Making exaggerated statements

to sell your point (or product) that no reasonable person would accept as true.

[backscatter712]

37. The audience at a Trump rally was not full of reasonable people.

It was full of enraged bigots who are dumb enough to actually start throwing punches when Trump eggs them on.

[COLGATE4]

38. It's one thing to say it -

quite another to prove it.

[backscatter712]

39. Looks like they're going to try...

https://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/police-consider-charging-trump-with-inciting-a-riot-over-violence-at-north-carolina-rally/

Police consider charging Trump with inciting a riot over violence at North Carolina rally
SARAH K. BURRIS
14 MAR 2016 AT 15:14 ET

The Cumberland County Sheriff’s office is considering filing charges of inciting a riot against GOP frontrunner Donald Trump for the Fayetteville, North Carolina rally according to an NBC reporter and local media sources. The rally was the site where Trump supporter John Franklin McGraw was arrested for sucker-punching a black protester and threatening to kill him.

“We are looking at the totality of these circumstances, including any additional charges against Mr. McGraw, including the potential of whether there was conduct on the part of Mr. Trump or the Trump campaign which rose to the level of inciting a riot,” Sheriff’s Office lawyer Ronnie Mitchell told The Fayetteville Observer.

At the rally, Trump asked the audience “Can’t we have a little more action than this?” when protesters were causing a disturbance. “See, in the good old days this didn’t use to happen, because they used to treat them very rough,” he said. “We’ve become very weak.”

That isn’t the first time. At an October 23 rally in Miami, Trump explained, “See the first group, I was nice. Oh, take your time. The second group, I was pretty nice,” he said. “The third group, I’ll be a little more violent. And the fourth group, I’ll say get the hell out of here!”

[COLGATE4]

40. I suspect it will come to nothing but it's a good

Last edited Mon Mar 14, 2016, 11:39 PM - Edit history (1)

PR ploy for the Police Department. After all, it's not the cops that bring the charge. It's the D.A. and I see that as very doubtful.

See update: Police announce they won't pursue changes against Drumpf

http://www.npr.org/2016/03/14/470449427/no-donald-trump-probably-isnt-being-charged-with-inciting-a-riot