Supreme Court rejects appeal from Black Lives Matter leader held liable for violent attack on police officer

[double tour 90]

Animals. 

 

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from a Black Lives Matter organizer who was held liable by a lower court for a random protester’s attack on a police officer at a protest he organized.

In 2016, civil rights activist Deray Mckesson was sued by an unnamed Baton Rouge police officer — "John Doe" — for injuries he sustained during a protest.

Doe claimed that an unidentified third party threw a "rock-like" object during the protest and hit him, knocking his teeth out and leaving him with a brain injury. The officer sued Mckesson on the theory that he "should have known" that the protest "would become violent as other similar riots had become violent."  

"The pattern was set: out-of-state protesters representing BLM fly into a town, gather, block a highway, engage and entice police, loot, damage property, injure bystanders, injure police. By July 9, 2016, when McKesson organized the Baton Rouge protest/riot—he had no reason to expect a different outcome—police will be injured," lawyers for the officer wrote in their brief.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-rejects-appeal-black-lives-matter-leader-held-liable-violent-attack-police-officer

[Engorgeous George 2,331]

Third party libility expanding>  first aprents jailed for the crimes of their son and now this.  An interesting trend to watch.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,484]

DeRay. Shitt parents. 

[Mike Honcho 5,287]

If the Scotus isn't going to hear this case, every January 6th cop should sue DT.  Watch how fast SCOTUS would be to get involved then.

[squistion 2,216]

 

[squistion 2,216]

Just now, Mike Honcho said:

If the Scotus isn't going to hear this case, every January 6th cop should sue DT.  Watch how fast SCOTUS would be to get involved then.

They sidestepped that issue.

 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,484]

3 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

If the Scotus isn't going to hear this case, every January 6th cop should sue DT.  Watch how fast SCOTUS would be to get involved then.

What’s been stopping them? 

[Mike Honcho 5,287]

3 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

What’s been stopping them? 

Current precedent pretty much, until the 5th just decided to ignore it for this case. 

[Fnord 2,280]

4 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

What’s been stopping them? 

I've been wondering the same.

[Mike Honcho 5,287]

9 minutes ago, Fnord said:

I've been wondering the same.

Precedent. 

Quote

 

AACP v. CLAIBORNE HARDWARE CO., 458 U.S. 886 (1982)

In 1966, a boycott of white merchants in Claiborne County, Miss., was launched at a meeting of a local branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) attended by several hundred black persons. The purpose of the boycott was to secure compliance by both civic and business leaders with a lengthy list of demands for equality and racial justice. The boycott was largely supported by speeches encouraging nonparticipants to join the common cause and by nonviolent picketing, but some acts and threats of violence did occur. In 1969, respondent white merchants filed suit in Mississippi Chancery Court for injunctive relief and damages against petitioners (the NAACP, the Mississippi Action for Progress, and a number of individuals who had participated in the boycott, including Charles Evers, the field secretary of the NAACP in Mississippi and a principal organizer of the boycott). Holding petitioners jointly and severally liable for all of respondents' lost earnings during a 7-year period from 1966 to the end of 1972 on three separate conspiracy theories, including the tort of malicious interference with respondents' businesses, the Chancery Court imposed damages liability and issued a permanent injunction. The Mississippi Supreme Court rejected two theories of liability but upheld the imposition of liability on the basis of the common-law tort theory. Based on evidence that fear of reprisals caused some black citizens to withhold their patronage from respondents' businesses, the court held that the entire boycott was unlawful and affirmed petitioners' liability for all damages "resulting from the boycott" on the ground that petitioners had agreed to use force, violence, and "threats" to effectuate the boycott.

Held:

1. The nonviolent elements of petitioners' activities are entitled to the protection of the First Amendment. Pp. 907-915.

(a) Through exercise of their First Amendment rights of speech, assembly, association, and petition, rather than through riot or revolution, petitioners sought to bring about political, social, and economic change. Pp. 907-912.

(b) While States have broad power to regulate economic activities, there is no comparable right to prohibit peaceful political activity such as that found in the boycott in this case. Pp. 912-915. [458 U.S. 886, 887]  

2. Petitioners are not liable in damages for the consequences of their nonviolent, protected activity. Pp. 915-920.

For similar reasons, the judgment against Evers cannot be separately justified, nor can liability be imposed upon him on the basis of speeches that he made, because those speeches did not incite violence or specifically authorize the use of violence. His acts, being insufficient to impose liability on him, may not be used to impose liability on the NAACP, his principal. Moreover, there is no finding that Evers or any other NAACP member had either actual or apparent authority from the NAACP to commit acts of violence or to threaten violent conduct or that the NAACP ratified unlawful conduct. To impose liability on the NAACP without such a finding would impermissibly burden the rights of political association that are protected by the First Amendment. Pp. 926-932.

 

You would have to prove the intent of DT's state of mind, IMO to get past his First Amendment argument. 

Though I'm on the side that his statements were absolutely meant to incite a disruption of the certification.

[Fnord 2,280]

1 hour ago, Mike Honcho said:

Precedent. 

You would have to prove the intent of DT's state of mind, IMO to get past his First Amendment argument. 

Though I'm on the side that his statements were absolutely meant to incite a disruption of the certification.

Thanks. I agree that Trump’s words alone on J6 are absolutely not enough to show intent. That's why I wanna know who he was talking to, and who his people were in contact with, in the days leading up to it. If prosecution can't prove intent, then so be it.