Federal Judge David A. Hale in Kentucky dismissed Donald Trump’s defense of free speech against a lawsuit brought by three protestors who allege they were roughed up while protesting at a March 2016 rally in Louisville.
Trump’s lawyers argue that the presidential candidate was not inciting violence when he said, “Get ‘em out of here, get them out,” at the rally.
“It is plausible that Trump’s direction to ‘get ‘em out of here’ advocated the use of force,” Hale claimed. And that the protestors’ injuries were a “direct and proximate result” of Trump’s actions.
According to Trump’s lawyers, the campaign cannot be held liable because it had no duty to the plaintiffs. The judge counters that every person has a duty to every other person to use care to prevent foreseeable injury.
The Court found that the plaintiffs’ harm was “foreseeable” and that the Trump defendants had a duty to prevent it.
If the plaintiffs jumped into a volcano, would this judge rule it was the volcano’s fault? Harm was foreseeable and the plaintiffs had a duty to themselves to recognize this and prevent the potential for a confrontation. If they weren’t looking for an altercation, they wouldn’t have gone to a Trump rally to provoke one. This is common sense, which apparently was non-existent in this court room.