Big men, these immigration "activists" to pummel this poor women with eggs.
Posted on 04/18/2018 9:52:22 AM PDT by Signalman
A lawyer is arguing that the San Jose Police Department in California isn’t liable for President Donald Trump’s supporters being attacked and assaulted because they were essentially asking for it.
According to CourthouseNews.com, a Ninth Circuit panel appears to be leaning toward allowing Trump supporters to move forward with their negligence claims against San Jose for failing to protect them during a far-left riot at a Trump campaign rally in 2016.
“There was an angry mob at the end of one exit while police said the other exits were blocked,” said Circuit Judge William Fletcher during the Monday hearing. “That sounds like the state created danger.”
But San Jose’s attorney, Matthew Pritchard, is essentially arguing the city isn’t responsible for the riots, mobs, and attacks because Trump supporters knew violent Californians weren’t going to play nice. He said the police officers, who completely failed to maintain a safe environment for both sides, should be entitled to immunity because there’s no way they could have known their negligence potentially violated Trump supporters constitutional rights.
“Take the state action out of the picture, you still have a situation with a potential to be dangerous,” he said. “It’s the nature of free-speech events that attendees could face political opponents that may become violent.”
Harmeet Dhillon, the attorney who argued the case on behalf of the Trump supporters who attended the rally, said the police actively created unnecessary danger and violence by blocking off alternative exits. She also said officers diverted Trump supporters directly into the middle of the seething mob of anti-Trumpers when they tried to leave.
Dhillon, who is also a well-known Fox News contributor, posted a video of Pritchard’s comments to her Facebook page on Friday.
Should have just said the cops don’t have an actionable duty to protect anyone.
The San Jose mayor and police chief collaborated with the antifa thugs and need to be prosecuted as accomplices.
How can there be a question of leaning? Is there an honest judge in the entire area?
Big men, these immigration "activists" to pummel this poor women with eggs.
Susman v city of los angeles
Okay, does that mean Trump supporters can take firearms, blades, and polearms to rallies - and use them if attacked - because we know the Californians or whoever won’t play nice and the cops don’t have to protect them?
Sure sounds that way to me?
If that can be proven the they should be penalized to the max
Be a shame if he got doxxed, and then something happened...
leftards implicitly accept the anarchic concept of freedom where some are free to violate the rights of others
The cops blocked off the exits that would have let the Trump fans get to their cars without running into what the police knew was a violent mob.
The police did this on purpose. There was no valid reason for blocking the other exit routes and forcing the Trump attendees to walk down a street filled with a mob bent on attacking them. This was collaboration with the thugs and San Jose leaders should be prosecuted for it.
Fourteenth Amendment- 1868
Proposed 1866; Ratified 1868
SEC. I. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws
Typical California. My condolences to FReepers who live in that cesspool.
Fresno State professor placed on leave after tweeting ‘Trump must hang
LA Times | Apr 19, 2017 | Melissa Etehad
Posted on 04/18/2018 9:43:41 AM PDT by LouieFisk
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3648470/posts
This guy is a little late to the party. I think it was two weeks ago I was emailing my friends that I couldn’t believe he was using the “short skirt” defense.
And as soon as a liberal gets hurt in one of these protests/marches/rallies this same lawyer will be in court saying the state and LE were negligent in protecting them....
Be a darn shame if some of the Leftist nitwits ever attack a man able to defend himself and he puts them down. A darn shame.
Paging George Orwell... Paging George Orwell - - 1984 has arrived.
Spot on. The government’s case here is that one should expect to be violently attacked for exercising one’s First Amendment rights, and government has no obligation to defend you or your rights.
It is only logical then that one exercises one’s Second Amendment rights in order to defend one’s First Amendment rights. Is this what San Jose is arguing? Sure sounds like it.
BTW personal professional experience with San Jose PD has left me with an indelible impression that they are equal parts lazy and incompetent. Nothing since that first impression twenty years s ago has led me to re-examine that assessment.
They had it coming. Hmmmmm.
Well...if Trump supporters had shot 4-5 of them....their defense could have been, "they knew we were crazy", they even said so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.