Already posted... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3409220/posts?page=4
Poor Teddy Bares. Teddy is a LOSER
Vote TRUMP! The Winner!!!
Posted on 03/14/2016 5:59:36 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
I raised an eyebrow at this detail in a WRAL story that's circulating this afternoon:
Last week, Trump visited Concord and Fayetteville in rallies that attracted thousands of attendees. During the rally in Fayetteville, a protester was assaulted as he was escorted from Crown Coliseum by police. A Linden man was later charged in the incident, and Cumberland County Sheriff's Office investigators said Monday that they are considering filing a charge of inciting a riot against Trump.
Fayetteville is where one of Trump's fans sucker-punched a protester who was being led out of the building. Trump said yesterday that he was looking into possibly paying the guy's legal fees because that's what making America great again is all about or something. Inciting a riot, though, would mean charges for Trump himself. Is that legal? Here's what North Carolina's statute says:
(a) A riot is a public disturbance involving an assemblage of three or more persons which by disorderly and violent conduct, or the imminent threat of disorderly and violent conduct, results in injury or damage to persons or property or creates a clear and present danger of injury or damage to persons or property...
(d) Any person who willfully incites or urges another to engage in a riot, so that as a result of such inciting or urging a riot occurs or a clear and present danger of a riot is created, is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
I don't know how one guy punching another, even at a crowded event, could constitute a "riot." The event itself may have involved three or more people but the "disturbance" didn't. And unless I missed it, Trump didn't say anything at the Fayetteville rally before the punch was thrown that could be construed as incitement. He's said things at other rallies that could be construed that way, like when he offered to pay the legal fees of anyone who stopped any tomato-throwing protesters by "knocking the crap out of them," but that happened back in February. The constitutional standard for prosecuting someone for incitement requires (1) that the advocacy is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action," and (2) that the advocacy is also "likely to incite or produce such action." Telling an angry mob with torches to burn something down is classic incitement. Telling a crowd of voters to beat up a protester would almost certainly be incitement (depending upon how likely they are to follow orders, I guess). Telling one crowd in another city to knock the crap out a protester who's throwing things six weeks earlier and then having someone in the crowd in another city throw a punch at a protester obviously isn't incitement. You can't say that the speech incited "imminent" violence, whatever Trump's intent and the intent of the punchthrower were.
According to the Daily Beast, the cops have realized that too:
The Cumberland County Sheriff's Office says that reports suggesting their investigators are considering filing a charge of inciting a riot against Donald Trump are untrue. WRAL reported Monday that the department is reviewing whether to nail the Republican frontrunner after a protester was beaten by the candidate's supporters during a rally last week.
According to Sgt. Sean Swain, a department spokesman, Sheriff Kevin J. Joyce appeared on a local radio show earlier Monday and was asked whether the department had looked into applying the state's riot laws against Trump--it was something "they had looked at," Joyce reportedly said. However, Swain told The Daily Beast, Trump's actions ultimately did not fit the statute. "We would have made the charges by now" if that were the case, the spokesman added.
Probably a half-dozen righties on Twitter semi-joked after the initial story went out that filing the charges would have given Trump a bounce in the polls, which sums up pretty tidily why #NeverTrumpers are opposing him. Here he is at the same Fayetteville rally last week reminiscing about how protesters were treated in the "good old days." Even this might not have counted as incitement before the punch was thrown, I think, since Trump would claim that it's not an expression of his intent, just an, ahem, observation. But the point is moot: Per the NYT, he said this after the protester had been sucker-punched, not before. It's awfully hard to incite someone retroactively.
(VIDEO-AT-LINK)
Mashable News
✔ @MashableNews
Trump in NC on Weds: "In the good old days this doesn't happen
because they used to treat them very, very rough."
9:04 AM - 11 Mar 2016
Update: I'm officially surprised.
A North Carolina sheriff's office is investigating whether Republican front-runner Donald Trump's actions at a Fayetteville, N.C., rally last week "rose to the level of inciting a riot," according to a statement from the department's lawyer.
"We are continuing to look at the totality of these circumstances . . . 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," said the statement from Cumberland Sheriff's Office attorney Ronnie Mitchell. An associate in Mitchell's office read the statement aloud to a Washington Post reporter.
That was published at 3:53 E.T., after the Daily Beast piece quoted above went online, so evidently they haven't ruled out charges against Trump after all. I think there's near zero chance that they'll actually charge him but Cruz has something to talk about for the next few days now. Surely there are still more voters in the GOP who dislike the idea of their nominee inciting riots than like it. Aren't there?
I’m smelling a whiff of the GOPe.
Already posted... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3409220/posts?page=4
Poor Teddy Bares. Teddy is a LOSER
Vote TRUMP! The Winner!!!
You mean the stench of the GOPe.
What riot? Bogus and you know it.
So you think I’m the author? You’ve been here how many years??
“I’m smelling a whiff of the GOPe”
It’s a sorry state of affairs when the Republican party discards the First Amendment. Chilling. I never thought I’d see that day — but here it is.
Yeah, he's standing next to a winner, isn't he?
See post #8 reference the second amendment.
While at Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius, Cruz represented Pfizer in a lawsuit brought by a group of public hospitals and community health centers who accused the drug manufacturer of overcharging. The Supreme Court eventually threw the case out. Shandong Linglong Rubber Company was found guilty of marketing versions of tires that were based on blueprints stolen by a former employee of a Florida businessman and ordered to pay $26 million to the Floridian. Cruz worked on the Chinese company's appellant brief. The appeals court denied the appeal and affirmed the jury's award. Cruz represented drug manufacturer B. Braun Medical Inc. in front of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit after the company was found guilty of wrongfully discharging a former employee. Cruz asserted that she had failed to prove that B. Braun had directed her to violate the law and that she had not presented sufficient evidence that her refusal to violate the law was why she had been fired. The appeals court rejected Cruz's argument and affirmed the $880,000 award. Cruz represented Toyota in an appeal to the Texas Supreme Court in an statute of limitations case, where a judge wanted to investigate Toyota for contempt after a former Toyota in-house lawyer accused Toyota of unlawfully withholding documents in a product liability case. Cruz unsuccessfully argued the judge's jurisdiction expired thirty days after the case was dismissed following an out-of-court settlement ... -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._Braun_Melsungen
Wow! As a lawyer he had clients? So did Lincoln and Adams!
When is someone going to pick up Louis Farrakan? Nobody has been inciting violence like that guy, for years.
That represents a win for Cruz, Einstein.
But neither of them lost a single case - ever.
The ^^^^ you say.
Don’t confuse him.
May be 2ndDivisionVet needs to be shown a bit of sympathy. He is desperate and will be more desperate after tomorrow’s (March 15) primary results are out.
I’m going to raise another $1,000 for each of the Trumpet’s nasty remarks. How’s that?
Good, the more money Cruzers spend, less remains in their bank account!
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.