It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Judge to Trump: No protection for speech inciting violence - Fox News Channel

page: 3
23
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 06:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66



wonder how much he'll pay this time?


Zilch

www.courier-journal.com...


Hale did dismiss one of the plaintiffs' claims that Trump was vicariously liable for Heimbach and Bamberger's actions. The men weren't employed by Trump or his campaign and therefore weren't under his control during the rally, the judge wrote.




posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 06:25 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

So he was telling the crowd and not security to "get them outta here"?

Because it seems that it was security and not the "mob" that escorted them out.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 06:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

And yet you did the exact thing in your OP



Yeeouch! That hits some of the strongest stereotypes of Trump supporters right on the head, doesn't it?



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 06:34 AM
link   
a reply to: WorShip

Yeah and also the ones who threatened to leave the USA



Sorry America, we're not leaving! Celebrities who had promised to leave for Canada and beyond decide to stay (so is it just a coincidence that Trump is planning tax cuts?)

Stars who had said they would quit America if he won have abandoned their promises before President-elect Trump is even inaugurated
Those who made hasty U-turns include Miley Cyrus, Whoopi Goldberg, Amy Schumer, Bryan Cranston and Chelsea Handler

Others have gone quiet, including Chloe Sevigny and Ne-Yo
Lena Dunham has still to address her pledge despite a 1,700-word jeremiad on how watching Clinton lose brought her out in hives
Quite why so many celebrity would-be emigrants have declined to go is unclear, although financial circumstances may have provided a motivation



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 06:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I don't think they'll be able to find any culpability to lay upon Trump.


"In sum, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that their harm was foreseeable and that the Trump Defendants had a duty to prevent it," the judge ruled


The people who did this should and IMO will be responsible for their actions. If, as this judge says, people have a duty to protect others from harm, think of the implications that will have. Perhaps for the good!

Even the verbiage quoted from the judge in that story did't really imply Trump was response. The article kind of obfuscates who/what exactly the defendant is.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 07:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

You actually think this crap would hold up in court. I know this stuff makrs the left get a collective hard on but please remain rational

And honestly Clinton hired protesters were crashing Bernie rallies so how can I take this seriously



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 07:14 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

You don't know anything about this person. I'm really amazed by this . Just because he was appointed by Obama you think you know something about him. A" so called judge" ?? You even parrot trump words for Christ's sake.
Talk about sheeple? OMG think for yourself. You're trumps slave.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 07:16 AM
link   
a reply to: JDmOKI

Yes. I think it will stand up in court.
Trump has spent his whole crooked life defending his bad behavior in court. He's a low life snake in the grass and deserves everything that's coming to him.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 08:30 AM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP


Let's not forget paid protesters with the intent to incite violence at Trump events.

"Really? So nothing about the legal standing of the case, or precedent or anything? "
That sounds like a precedent that the judge didn't want to hear or entertain in his ruling.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 08:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

That could be true. Its why i said it'll be an interesting trial.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 08:45 AM
link   
LOL!!!




posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 08:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Gryphon66

Oh boy...one of those "so-called" judges, who also happens to be an IDIOT. If saying "Get them out of here" can get you sued, imagine the precedent that would set!



You just cant make this stuff up. Now average (some may argue below average) citizens excoriating a Judge's professional appointment for which he or she has been educated for years giving them rise to actually BE appointed, now are using all the Trump keywords du jour. Saying "get them outta here" to a) individuals who have no authority to remove people from b) a public gathering hence c) encroaching upon their freedom of speech - yes becomes a liability. Are you really too ignorant to see that?

I just bet you cant wait for Trumps intended targets to get their day in the sun, more specifically net neutrality whereby Trump would have ISP's be classified as a utility...this way the only content you will have to see are opinions that are 100% in line with yours....



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 09:00 AM
link   
I can believe that trump said "get them out of here" as a reaction to the crowd he was feeding off of and wanted to get them out of the venue. nothing malicious on his part, i doubt he even thought as far as to the safety of frenzied mob going after people. he saw it happening and thought "that is one way to get them out of here".

there is also a part of me that says yea, he knew all along what would happen, heck he just wanted to see what would happen. he could have easily calmed the situation down. but he didn't and egged them on. he knew what he was doing.

going to have to let the courts sort this one out.
edit on 2-4-2017 by cenpuppie because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

From your source:



Citing case law from tumultuous 1960s race riots and student protests, Hale rejected motions to dismiss the pending complaint against Trump and three supporters in the crowd that was filed by three protesters after a March 1, 2016, campaign rally in Louisville. Only a portion of the defendants' motion was granted, but the decision means that the bulk of the claims will proceed.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 09:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: Gryphon66

You actually think this crap would hold up in court. I know this stuff makrs the left get a collective hard on but please remain rational

And honestly Clinton hired protesters were crashing Bernie rallies so how can I take this seriously


So Fox News is "left" now? That's the source.

All due respect, it doesn't matter if you take this seriously ... it's what the Court take seriously.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: alphabetaone

Repeating the pattern that Trump established to a T.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

You mean the article from Fox News obfuscates? how so?

From the article, fourth paragraph:



Judge David J. Hale in Louisville ruled Friday that the suit against Trump, his campaign and three of his supporters can proceed.

edit on 2-4-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 09:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

A dangerous precedent.

It's an attack on free speech.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 09:12 AM
link   
a reply to: cenpuppie

Nothing malicious?

I'm sure there was nothing malicious when he talked about protesters being removed on stretchers either.



posted on Apr, 2 2017 @ 09:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: alphabetaone

Repeating the pattern that Trump established to a T.



I can actually understand those who would say things like "well then sue the ones inciting violence from the Left"....to which I agree! Sue them!

What I can't understand are those who are arguing that "nothing to see here move along" and relish the violence simply because they voted for the guy. *I*, stupidly, voted for the guy...thinking all of his BS rhetoric would actually morph into an understanding that he's no longer "playing the Apprentice" and needed to man up and run a country....because that hasn't happened and he is actually creating a more divisive environment than I could have ever imagined is why now I'm in the uncomfortable position of realizing how wrong I was.

People in general don't like to admit they were wrong, but it shouldn't blind them to what is going on around them either.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join