Thread title changed for clarity.
RickJay
Moderator
I think manslaughter would be tough to convict on. I think dereliction of duty (refusing to send in the NG), incitement to riot, and seditious conspiracy would be more appropriate charges.
I’m one of those that does not say his surname out loud nor do I type it except when it can’t be avoided. I just use Donald most of the time or one of many insulting names.
Careful; you’re maligning chimpanzees; they have a powerful bite and a surprisingly litigious legal team, and definitely do not want to be associated with an orangutan like Donald Trump.
If you’re going to use an insulting epithet, why not go with the classic Graydon Carter-penned “short fingered vulgarian” as popularized in Spy magazine. It angers Trump, and the hilarious thing is that he doesn’t even comprehend the thrust of the insult.
Stranger
In the pecking order of primates I always consider the Orangutan a superior critter to the chimp. Perhaps not in brains, but certainly in class.
But your larger point is well taken. Other than maybe slime molds I think almost any living thing would take umbrage at being linked with the disgraced dude.
Slime molds are fascinating, and have their own form of intelligence, so they’d probably not appreciate it.
Maybe Treponema pallidum, the bacteria that causes syphilis, would be okay with being compared to Trump.
Spirochetes. Always burrowing into where they are unwelcome. And inducing insanity in otherwise normal nervous systems.
Ding ding ding! We have a winner. Well done Sir!
I believe he is guilty of that and much more, but that is not the crime he will ever be convicted for.
May I say the general direction of the thread is probably quite unlike what y’all expected…
Getting back to the main topic…
I do believe that Trump is guilty of man’s laughter. Many humans have laughed at that orange clown.
Explains the tears in their eyes.
Dan
Nah. They have tears in their eyes because they’re too week.
Actually, I was seriously wondering why, if someone dies committing a crime at another’s behest, the other isn’t somewhat culpable. The thread got derailed by my insensitive wordage in the title.
You’d need evidence that Trump personally told her to do exactly what she did.
He certainly inspired the riots with his rhetoric, but it wasn’t a direct command.
Consider the difference between two situations…
-
A man says to a friend, “At 2 PM on Thursday, I know that there is a shift change with the security guards at the bank. If you go in right there and rob it, you can be in and out without resistance. Here are some other people I recruited to help you out. I have a hidden place you can meet up at later, here are directions.”
-
A man is giving a speech in front of a crowd of people, talking about how the rich and powerful are corrupt, and the banks are full of money stolen from the community. He insists that it would be justice if people marched to the bank and forced them to give back their ill-gotten gains.
In the first scenario, clearly this person is a co-conspirator, and if someone was shot and killed in the course of the robbery, I could see them being charged as an accessory to murder (or manslaughter, or whatever).
In the second scenario, while the speaker might have inspired a crime, there was no collusion, no direct planning, nothing.
I know that the Trump incident is more complicated of course. For example, he specifically directed people to march on the capitol right at that moment, and he knew that many were armed, and he riled them up intentionally. Also, he failed to do anything to stop it, when he had the power to do so, and allowed it to happen. He certainly bears some culpability in my mind for what happened. But I don’t think he is directly guilty of any specific crimes those people committed.
…I am not a lawyer, but I have watched plenty of videos and read quite a bit of literature on the law as I’m fascinated by it. I also learned a lot from The Illustrated Guide to Law. Here is the section talking about accomplice liability. I find it both entertaining, and informative.
You can also skip ahead to the part where they start saying who is considered an accomplice, and who isn’t, and why.
What Trump did doesn’t seem to come close to what you’d need to be held legally responsible for what happened to Babbit, or anyone else engaged in physical violence.
Okay okay, I’ll scale my dream down to civil suit and put it on the pile. Considering the number ahead of it, it should hit the court in about 50 years.
In the World War I years, the socialist movement was viewed as a serious threat by the United States government, to the extent that they enforced lots of laws relating to sedition. As such, a great deal of “Free Speech” jurisprudence comes from the era (including the famous “you can’t shout fire in a crowded theater”).
I say this to say that I believe that Trump can be held responsible for the crimes they committed, in that it would be feasible to say that he incited a riot. As evidence it was a riot, Exhibit A is the death of Ashli Babbitt. But that’s not manslaughter.
I absolutely agree with this.
Did the Babbit death happen while trump was hiding out in the White House dining room for those 3 hours?
Here is Wikipedia’s timeline of the traitors’ attack on the Capitol.
2:44 p.m. The loser shot.
3:13 p.m. That unfunny joke of a president sent out a tweet asking people to be peaceful.
3:36 p.m., White House press secretary tweets federal forces headed to the Capitol.
4:03 p.m. That unfunny joke of a president goes to the Rose Garden for a video op to call for an end to the violence.
Yeah, he’s not even close to innocent here.
So if he would have called them off sooner, she wouldn’t be going through that window. He wanted to see how it would play out, and she found out.