https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald ... e-n1254258Punishable incitement must "specifically advocate" for listeners to take unlawful action, give the crowd detailed instructions on how to break the law, or enlist the crowd to carry out a criminal act, the high court has said.
Under the Supreme Court's Brandenburg test, speech cannot constitute incitement unless the speaker intends lawlessness to result.
Some, including senators in Trump's trial, will point out that the rioters stormed the Capitol after hearing Trump's speech. To them, the evidence that the speech incited violence is apparent: there was violence after it.
But defining the speech by the audience's reaction, however, may be an unconstitutional "heckler’s veto," as a legal doctrine is known. The heckler's veto doctrine provides that the hostile reaction of a crowd does not transform protected speech into incitement. A speaker is not automatically liable for the acts of anyone who was at an intended peaceful demonstration. Rather, the speaker must have the intent to engage in the criminal conduct.
Acceptable registrations in the queue through June 3 at 5:00p ET have now been activated. Enjoy! -M.W.
Terms of Use have been amended effective October 6, 2019. Make sure you are aware of the new rules! Please visit this thread for details: https://www.mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/view ... 16&t=48619
Terms of Use have been amended effective October 6, 2019. Make sure you are aware of the new rules! Please visit this thread for details: https://www.mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/view ... 16&t=48619
Trump's speech does not rise to the level of incitement
Trump's speech does not rise to the level of incitement
So says Danny Cevallos of NBC News.
Re: Trump's speech does not rise to the level of incitement
Everybody is entitled to their own opinion and others have had a different interpretation of the law. Personally, I don't think this will ever go to trial. However, it certainly appears that Trump has already lost in the court of public opinion.
The censorship king from out of state.
Re: Trump's speech does not rise to the level of incitement
It certainly had the effect of inciting a mob.
Trump thanked the mob afterward saying "We love you. You're very special."
Trump thanked the mob afterward saying "We love you. You're very special."
I don't mean to brag, but I just put a puzzle together in 1 day and the box said 2-4 years.
Re: Trump's speech does not rise to the level of incitement
Another important fact. According to the Washington Post's timeline of the day. The Capitol was breached well before Trumps speech ended. Trumpsters don't leave while "the man" is still speaking.
Also, according to CNN...
I want to know who shot Ms. Babbitt. I've seen several videos of the shooting, from a number of angles. You all know I give law enforcement every benefit of the doubt, but this was outright negligent homicide at best. Why are they slow walking this? I swear, if Ms. Bobbitt had a slightly darker skin color, there would be protests outside the Capitol 24-hours a day. Why does no one seem to care?
Also, according to CNN...
Lets also remember how much the "facts" have changed after the dust has settled with any number of events. Remember how Benghazi was a "protest" because of a YouTube video. Susan Rice told us so, many times. Turned out to be planned well in advance. Hands Up Don't Shoot was another.Evidence uncovered so far, including weapons and tactics seen on surveillance video, suggests a level of planning that has led investigators to believe the attack on the US Capitol was not just a protest that spiraled out of control, a federal law enforcement official says.
Among the evidence the FBI is examining are indications that some participants at the Trump rally at the Ellipse, outside the White House, left the event early, perhaps to retrieve items to be used in the assault on the Capitol.
I want to know who shot Ms. Babbitt. I've seen several videos of the shooting, from a number of angles. You all know I give law enforcement every benefit of the doubt, but this was outright negligent homicide at best. Why are they slow walking this? I swear, if Ms. Bobbitt had a slightly darker skin color, there would be protests outside the Capitol 24-hours a day. Why does no one seem to care?
New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.
- Lester The Nightfly
- Posts: 1794
- Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 6:19 pm
Re: Trump's speech does not rise to the level of incitement
The other slam dunk would be the cop would walk...Bryce wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 3:21 pmAnother important fact. According to the Washington Post's timeline of the day. The Capitol was breached well before Trumps speech ended. Trumpsters don't leave while "the man" is still speaking.
Also, according to CNN...
Lets also remember how much the "facts" have changed after the dust has settled with any number of events. Remember how Benghazi was a "protest" because of a YouTube video. Susan Rice told us so, many times. Turned out to be planned well in advance. Hands Up Don't Shoot was another.Evidence uncovered so far, including weapons and tactics seen on surveillance video, suggests a level of planning that has led investigators to believe the attack on the US Capitol was not just a protest that spiraled out of control, a federal law enforcement official says.
Among the evidence the FBI is examining are indications that some participants at the Trump rally at the Ellipse, outside the White House, left the event early, perhaps to retrieve items to be used in the assault on the Capitol.
I want to know who shot Ms. Babbitt. I've seen several videos of the shooting, from a number of angles. You all know I give law enforcement every benefit of the doubt, but this was outright negligent homicide at best. Why are they slow walking this? I swear, if Ms. Bobbitt had a slightly darker skin color, there would be protests outside the Capitol 24-hours a day. Why does no one seem to care?
Re: Trump's speech does not rise to the level of incitement
I think another interesting question is, would YOU care as much about this had darker skin color been in play here and the cause was something you didn't agree with? I've seen more than a couple instances of "negligent homicide" by police officers in my day but it typically gets explained away with the "if the victim would've just done what they were told this wouldn't have happened!!"
There's gonna be a lot of questions that get answered about all this shit that went down last week...
- craig11152
- Posts: 2078
- Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 8:15 am
- Location: Ann Arbor
Re: Trump's speech does not rise to the level of incitement
The problem is he spent months chumming the water. So his words that day are a small part of a bigger picture.
I no longer directly engage trolls
-
- Posts: 2778
- Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 8:05 am
Re: Trump's speech does not rise to the level of incitement
Trump is forever F’d.
And republicans who won’t exit off his four year long freeway of lies and whitey supremacy are also F’d.
Both the inciter and his enablers are tightly bound together in the F’d “basket of deplorables.”
Justice.
At last!
Watch ‘em squirm like worms to distance and exonerate themselves.
Sorry sickos. You’ve doomed yourselves to history’s inescapable lock box of infamy.
And republicans who won’t exit off his four year long freeway of lies and whitey supremacy are also F’d.
Both the inciter and his enablers are tightly bound together in the F’d “basket of deplorables.”
Justice.
At last!
Watch ‘em squirm like worms to distance and exonerate themselves.
Sorry sickos. You’ve doomed yourselves to history’s inescapable lock box of infamy.
Last edited by screen glare on Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Trump's speech does not rise to the level of incitement
craig11152 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:35 pmThe problem is he spent months chumming the water. So his words that day are a small part of a bigger picture.
The censorship king from out of state.
Re: Trump's speech does not rise to the level of incitement
Yes, yes I would. If the actions don't meet the threshold of "use of deadly force" I don't care who the person is or what the individual looks like. There are both legal and moral issues at play in the use of deadly force. I don't believe either one was satisfied in this instance. That young lady was not an imminent threat to the officer or anyone around him. The only thing he can claim, in my estimation, is "Fog of War." At the level he was working, that shouldn't be a valid excuse. It's not like this officer was some backwoods Sherriff's Deputy.Motown322 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:00 pmI think another interesting question is, would YOU care as much about this had darker skin color been in play here and the cause was something you didn't agree with? I've seen more than a couple instances of "negligent homicide" by police officers in my day but it typically gets explained away with the "if the victim would've just done what they were told this wouldn't have happened!!"
There's gonna be a lot of questions that get answered about all this shit that went down last week...
I just don't understand why I seem the only one concerned about this. There doesn't seem to be anyone questioning this or upset about it.
New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.
Re: Trump's speech does not rise to the level of incitement
You seem to be in disbelief about a lot of things right now Bryce. Give TM a try.
“Blessed are those who are righteous in his name.”
― Matt
Posting Content © 2024 TC Talks Holdings LP.
― Matt
Posting Content © 2024 TC Talks Holdings LP.
Re: Trump's speech does not rise to the level of incitement
Sorry, I only say Ohm when working with conductors.
New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.
Re: Trump's speech does not rise to the level of incitement
Maybe play with your dogs more then. You're going off the deep end.
The censorship king from out of state.
Re: Trump's speech does not rise to the level of incitement
This looks more like what Democrat governors are doing to individual rights and small businesses during COVID.Honeyman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:51 pmcraig11152 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 14, 2021 5:35 pmThe problem is he spent months chumming the water. So his words that day are a small part of a bigger picture.
Re: Trump's speech does not rise to the level of incitement
Deep end?
The homicide of 13-year Air Force Veteran by a member of Capitol security doesn't warrant any attention? I'm flabbergasted.
The homicide of 13-year Air Force Veteran by a member of Capitol security doesn't warrant any attention? I'm flabbergasted.
New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.