• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Should Trump, Rudy and Junior be charged with murder?

RJKarl

RJKarl

Banhammer'd
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
78,116
Reaction score
3,112
Location
HB, CA
I thought this deserved its own thread rather than being part of another.

If you do a hold-up and someone is killed, you are held responsible for murder even if this wasn't your intention.

We have Trump, Rudy and Junior live and on tape inciting the mob to go to the Capitol. Should they be charged as accomplices in the murder of the Capitol policeman who was killed during the riot?

Can/should they be charged with assault/attempted murder for each of the dozens of injured Capitol police?

As a follow up from the lawyers- If Trump is part of crime is his pardon power voided for his co-defendants?
 
i know it sounds a bit out there , but i was kinda wondering about this too. At the least manslaughter - simply put those people would not have died without the actions of the folks you mention above. could you imagine if (for example) AOC led a rally in DC and the same thing happened. she'd already have been executed.
 
RJKarl said:
As a follow up from the lawyers- If Trump is part of crime is his pardon power voided for his co-defendants?
Click to expand...

As a not lawyer, let me say that I think, he can pardon his co-defendants, but he could then possibly charged with obstruction of justice.
 
bym051d said:
As a not lawyer, let me say that I think, he can pardon his co-defendants, but he could then possibly charged with obstruction of justice.
Click to expand...

I've heard some "experts" say that if the pardons obstruct justice they can be voided. This is more about being a co-conspirator.

But I will absolutely defer to you if stayed at or drove by a Holiday Inn Express in 2021.
 
Was also wondering about what the charges will be once he's finally out of office. I'd assume that, at the very least, the families of the 5 people who were killed during the capital storming would have extremely compelling civil cases against Trump, Rudy, and Trump Junior - even if criminal murder or manslaughter charges would be difficult to successfully prosecute.
 
As to "they didn't murder anyone"- the getaway driver at a bank robbery, who never entered the bank, can be held as responsible as the gunman for any killings that happened during the robbery.
 
DCDeac said:
Was also wondering about what the charges will be once he's finally out of office. I'd assume that, at the very least, the families of the 5 people who were killed during the capital storming would have extremely compelling civil cases against Trump, Rudy, and Trump Junior - even if criminal murder or manslaughter charges would be difficult to successfully prosecute.
Click to expand...

Can you freeze assets during the time from when a case is filed until it is finished?
 
DCDeac said:
Was also wondering about what the charges will be once he's finally out of office. I'd assume that, at the very least, the families of the 5 people who were killed during the capital storming would have extremely compelling civil cases against Trump, Rudy, and Trump Junior - even if criminal murder or manslaughter charges would be difficult to successfully prosecute.
Click to expand...

IANAL, but Capitol Police officers would surely have a civil case.

Any lamebrain protestor who willingly advanced on the Capitol building or entered it as part of a lawless mob was an individual actor undertaking exercise of his/her freewill. They willingly committed crimes and placed themselves in harms way, regardless of who put them up to it. Arguing that they were coerced would be ridiculous imo.
 
There are very important legal and factual differences between being part of a bank-robbery conspiracy and the felony murder rule vs. giving a speech and some of the listeners proceeding to commit crimes. The answer to your question is a resounding "no," and we can all move on.

Trump's speech was inciteful and filled with lies and baseless conspiracy theories (a normal Trump speech). However, it was also protected by the First Amendment because it did not incite imminent lawless action, the key word being imminent. If Trump had instructed the crowd to commit a crime, this would be a different discussion.
 
RJKarl said:
As to "they didn't murder anyone"- the getaway driver at a bank robbery, who never entered the bank, can be held as responsible as the gunman for any killings that happened during the robbery.
Click to expand...

Inciting a riot is not the same crime as planning and participating in an armed robbery.

Besides, Trump's been saying the same shit for years now.
 
wakelaw13 said:
There are very important legal and factual differences between being part of a bank-robbery conspiracy and the felony murder rule vs. giving a speech and some of the listeners proceeding to commit crimes. The answer to your question is a resounding "no," and we can all move on.

Trump's speech was inciteful and filled with lies and baseless conspiracy theories (a normal Trump speech). However, it was also protected by the First Amendment because it did not incite imminent lawless action, the key word being imminent. If Trump had instructed the crowd to commit a crime, this would be a different discussion.
Click to expand...

It absolutely did incite imminent lawless action. He told to the crowd to go to the Capitol and he would be with them. Don, Jr. told the crowd to "fight for Trump".
 
Been about two decades since I took criminal law and I haven't looked at this with respect to this incident, but it would have to be an aiding, abetting or accessory type of charge, and potentially conspiracy to commit, and would hinge on Trump knowing that a crime was going to be or had been committed, and providing some sort of assistance. That has to be why Trump came out and said he called in the national guard (a lie, Pence did). Any charge would presumably be based on him inciting the crime, knowing a crime was being or would be committed (apparently he was really enjoying watching these crimes be committed) and then passively assisting by refusing or preventing the calling in of the national guard, or knowing that this riot and violence would happen and not sharing that information so that proper precautions could be taken. I'm sure Junebug, one of the rare lawyers who is an expert in every area of the law, will tell my why this is wrong.
 
wakelaw13 said:
There are very important legal and factual differences between being part of a bank-robbery conspiracy and the felony murder rule vs. giving a speech and some of the listeners proceeding to commit crimes. The answer to your question is a resounding "no," and we can all move on.

Trump's speech was inciteful and filled with lies and baseless conspiracy theories (a normal Trump speech). However, it was also protected by the First Amendment because it did not incite imminent lawless action, the key word being imminent. If Trump had instructed the crowd to commit a crime, this would be a different discussion.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but yelling "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater would result in criminal liability if people were trampled to death running out of the theater.
 
Last edited:
I've listened to the relevant parts of the speech many times now. My legal opinion is that the entirety of his speech was protected by the First Amendment. This is in no way a defense of Trump, who I despise. It's simply my legal analysis.
 
Shooshmoo said:
Been about two decades since I took criminal law and I haven't looked at this with respect to this incident, but it would have to be an aiding, abetting or accessory type of charge, and potentially conspiracy to commit, and would hinge on Trump knowing that a crime was going to be or had been committed, and providing some sort of assistance. That has to be why Trump came out and said he called in the national guard (a lie, Pence did). Any charge would presumably be based on him inciting the crime, knowing a crime was being or would be committed (apparently he was really enjoying watching these crimes be committed) and then passively assisting by refusing or preventing the calling in of the national guard, or knowing that this riot and violence would happen and not sharing that information so that proper precautions could be taken. I'm sure Junebug, one of the rare lawyers who is an expert in every area of the law, will tell my why this is wrong.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't telling the mob to go to the Capitol and that he would be with them after his son told them to "fight for Trump" be instructing them to do something?

He knew there were armed people there and he is their leader.
 
RJKarl said:
Wouldn't telling the mob to go to the Capitol and that he would be with them after his son told them to "fight for Trump" be instructing them to do something?

He knew there were armed people there and he is their leader.
Click to expand...

I think it is, and he is also sending his henchman out to do the same thing -- I see it as instructing his cult to commit crimes. I think it would come down to what he knew would happen based on these instructions and what if anything he did to stop or delay the calling in of the national guard. Just charge the fucking guy with everything potentially possible and make the rest of his life a miserable series of trials, depositions, and hopefully jail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top