Anyone sponsoring protest groups that get violent at inaugural should be arrested too

[theDoctorisIn]

No, but the shooter did refer to both of them as inspirations.

thank you for having the balls to agree that neither was an organizer

I'll give you a more applicable example.

Is a concert promoter legally responsible for a fight that breaks out at his concert?

certainly

Crowds, Violence, and Tort Liability


Crowds, Violence, and Tort Liability

you might also want to look up

the theory of concert of action in tort law

you will see it in both civil and criminal law

You might want to read that link a little closer.

I was specific in my wording for the example - a concert promoter does not own the venue of a concert, and has no obligation towards maintaining the security there. That responsibility lies with the owner of the venue - or in the case of a protest, the city the protest is being held in.

concert promoters get sued all the time

On May 25, a shooting at a T.I. concert in New York City left one person dead and three others wounded.

Troy Ave affiliate Banga died from a gunshot wound to the chest. Ave, who was himself shot in the leg, was formally indicted for attempted murder and later sued NYC venue Irving Plaza and its operator Live Nation. He claimed that the venue’s lax security measures put him and others in danger and that the personnel at both Irving Plaza and Live Nation should have been more active in de-escalating the event.

Now two attendees injured at the concert are also suing the venue and Live Nation over inefficient security, reports TMZ.

The lawsuit claims that “the venue didn’t adequately screen people entering the concert,” which led to the shooting and that the plaintiffs “suffered serious physical injuries and mental anguish.”

Two people injured in the T.I. concert shooting this summer are suing Live Nation

Read your link again.

Irving Plaza and LiveNation are the owners of the venue, not the promoters of the concert.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You might want to read that link a little closer.

I was specific in my wording for the example - a concert promoter does not own the venue of a concert, and has no obligation towards maintaining the security there. That responsibility lies with the owner of the venue - or in the case of a protest, the city the protest is being held in.

Oaky, then the city should hold the promoter of those protests liable for all the associated costs to have their protest.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You might want to read that link a little closer.

I was specific in my wording for the example - a concert promoter does not own the venue of a concert, and has no obligation towards maintaining the security there. That responsibility lies with the owner of the venue - or in the case of a protest, the city the protest is being held in.

Oaky, then the city should hold the promoter of those protests liable for all the associated costs to have their protest.

They are welcome to try, but they won't win.

 

[depotoo]

Peaceably? Peaceably is fine. They are going out of their way, according to themselves even, to not be peaceful"

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Unless you can prove a conspiracy to breach the peace by the sponsors, go fish.

 

[whitehall]

You can't do that. You can't hold a 1st Amendment legitimate protest organization responsible for the conduct of crazy demonstrators.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You might want to read that link a little closer.

I was specific in my wording for the example - a concert promoter does not own the venue of a concert, and has no obligation towards maintaining the security there. That responsibility lies with the owner of the venue - or in the case of a protest, the city the protest is being held in.

Oaky, then the city should hold the promoter of those protests liable for all the associated costs to have their protest.

They are welcome to try, but they won't win.

I think they should win. A city can't stop protests because of our Constitution. That's fine. But why should a city have to pay a million dollars to pay their officers and bring in other officers from other places to try and keep them from doing damage?

 

[jon_berzerk]

thank you for having the balls to agree that neither was an organizer

I'll give you a more applicable example.

Is a concert promoter legally responsible for a fight that breaks out at his concert?

certainly

Crowds, Violence, and Tort Liability


Crowds, Violence, and Tort Liability

you might also want to look up

the theory of concert of action in tort law

you will see it in both civil and criminal law

You might want to read that link a little closer.

I was specific in my wording for the example - a concert promoter does not own the venue of a concert, and has no obligation towards maintaining the security there. That responsibility lies with the owner of the venue - or in the case of a protest, the city the protest is being held in.

concert promoters get sued all the time

On May 25, a shooting at a T.I. concert in New York City left one person dead and three others wounded.

Troy Ave affiliate Banga died from a gunshot wound to the chest. Ave, who was himself shot in the leg, was formally indicted for attempted murder and later sued NYC venue Irving Plaza and its operator Live Nation. He claimed that the venue’s lax security measures put him and others in danger and that the personnel at both Irving Plaza and Live Nation should have been more active in de-escalating the event.

Now two attendees injured at the concert are also suing the venue and Live Nation over inefficient security, reports TMZ.

The lawsuit claims that “the venue didn’t adequately screen people entering the concert,” which led to the shooting and that the plaintiffs “suffered serious physical injuries and mental anguish.”

Two people injured in the T.I. concert shooting this summer are suing Live Nation

Read your link again.

Irving Plaza and LiveNation are the owners of the venue, not the promoters of the concert.

the venue and live nation are each being sued hence the word "and"
however

In most cases, however, a third party will be held liable for the accident or injuries. For example, this could be the event coordinator, the venue planner or even the artist who is performing.

Injured at a Concert? Here’s the Information You Need | Bighorn Law - Personal Injury Attorneys

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You might want to read that link a little closer.

I was specific in my wording for the example - a concert promoter does not own the venue of a concert, and has no obligation towards maintaining the security there. That responsibility lies with the owner of the venue - or in the case of a protest, the city the protest is being held in.

Oaky, then the city should hold the promoter of those protests liable for all the associated costs to have their protest.

They are welcome to try, but they won't win.

I think they should win. A city can't stop protests because of our Constitution. That's fine. But why should a city have to pay a million dollars to pay their officers and bring in other officers from other places to try and keep them from doing damage?

Because it's their legal responsibility.

That's the same reason why the city of New York has to pay millions of dollars to protect Trump Tower.

 

[Dr Grump]

[

I'm not following that. What do you mean by my peers? The problem with liability is not many fight it. We had a police shooting here in my city, the officer was found not guilty of any crime, and the city still paid the mother of the victim millions of dollars.

Sorry, should have elaborated. In the case of OJ and King both cases were tried outside the jurisdictions of where they happened. The only reason being that in both cases the defence or prosecution didn't trust the citizens of those districts to do the right thing. IOW, it wasn't about justice but whether one side could get advantage over the other. This is because - in both cases - one side didn't trust the people to do the right thing.

As for paying the victims families. Thank your litigious society for that.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I'll give you a more applicable example.

Is a concert promoter legally responsible for a fight that breaks out at his concert?

certainly

Crowds, Violence, and Tort Liability


Crowds, Violence, and Tort Liability

you might also want to look up

the theory of concert of action in tort law

you will see it in both civil and criminal law

You might want to read that link a little closer.

I was specific in my wording for the example - a concert promoter does not own the venue of a concert, and has no obligation towards maintaining the security there. That responsibility lies with the owner of the venue - or in the case of a protest, the city the protest is being held in.

concert promoters get sued all the time

On May 25, a shooting at a T.I. concert in New York City left one person dead and three others wounded.

Troy Ave affiliate Banga died from a gunshot wound to the chest. Ave, who was himself shot in the leg, was formally indicted for attempted murder and later sued NYC venue Irving Plaza and its operator Live Nation. He claimed that the venue’s lax security measures put him and others in danger and that the personnel at both Irving Plaza and Live Nation should have been more active in de-escalating the event.

Now two attendees injured at the concert are also suing the venue and Live Nation over inefficient security, reports TMZ.

The lawsuit claims that “the venue didn’t adequately screen people entering the concert,” which led to the shooting and that the plaintiffs “suffered serious physical injuries and mental anguish.”

Two people injured in the T.I. concert shooting this summer are suing Live Nation

Read your link again.

Irving Plaza and LiveNation are the owners of the venue, not the promoters of the concert.

the venue and live nation are each being sued hence the word "and"
however

In most cases, however, a third party will be held liable for the accident or injuries. For example, this could be the event coordinator, the venue planner or even the artist who is performing.

Injured at a Concert? Here’s the Information You Need | Bighorn Law - Personal Injury Attorneys

Live Nation is the owner of Irving Plaza (the venue).

Your ambulance-chaser link notwithstanding, providing security is not the responsibility of a promoter.

 

[jon_berzerk]

certainly

Crowds, Violence, and Tort Liability


Crowds, Violence, and Tort Liability

you might also want to look up

the theory of concert of action in tort law

you will see it in both civil and criminal law

You might want to read that link a little closer.

I was specific in my wording for the example - a concert promoter does not own the venue of a concert, and has no obligation towards maintaining the security there. That responsibility lies with the owner of the venue - or in the case of a protest, the city the protest is being held in.

concert promoters get sued all the time

On May 25, a shooting at a T.I. concert in New York City left one person dead and three others wounded.

Troy Ave affiliate Banga died from a gunshot wound to the chest. Ave, who was himself shot in the leg, was formally indicted for attempted murder and later sued NYC venue Irving Plaza and its operator Live Nation. He claimed that the venue’s lax security measures put him and others in danger and that the personnel at both Irving Plaza and Live Nation should have been more active in de-escalating the event.

Now two attendees injured at the concert are also suing the venue and Live Nation over inefficient security, reports TMZ.

The lawsuit claims that “the venue didn’t adequately screen people entering the concert,” which led to the shooting and that the plaintiffs “suffered serious physical injuries and mental anguish.”

Two people injured in the T.I. concert shooting this summer are suing Live Nation

Read your link again.

Irving Plaza and LiveNation are the owners of the venue, not the promoters of the concert.

the venue and live nation are each being sued hence the word "and"
however

In most cases, however, a third party will be held liable for the accident or injuries. For example, this could be the event coordinator, the venue planner or even the artist who is performing.

Injured at a Concert? Here’s the Information You Need | Bighorn Law - Personal Injury Attorneys

Live Nation is the owner of Irving Plaza (the venue).

Your ambulance-chaser link notwithstanding, providing security is not the responsibility of a promoter.

there are so many cases against concert promoters


they go on and on


CASE

"Mosh Pit" Lawsuit Filed Against Concert Promoter

COURT
Circuit Court of Miami-Dade County (Judge Victoria S. Sigler)


A lawsuit was filed by his attorney, David W. Lipcon, against the concert promoter, Live Nation, and the company hired to provide security/crowd control at the show.

again livenation was the promoter

"Mosh Pit" Lawsuit Filed Against Concert Promoter

so yes promoters can be sued and held liable

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You might want to read that link a little closer.

I was specific in my wording for the example - a concert promoter does not own the venue of a concert, and has no obligation towards maintaining the security there. That responsibility lies with the owner of the venue - or in the case of a protest, the city the protest is being held in.

Oaky, then the city should hold the promoter of those protests liable for all the associated costs to have their protest.

They are welcome to try, but they won't win.

I think they should win. A city can't stop protests because of our Constitution. That's fine. But why should a city have to pay a million dollars to pay their officers and bring in other officers from other places to try and keep them from doing damage?

Because it's their legal responsibility.

That's the same reason why the city of New York has to pay millions of dollars to protect Trump Tower.

Apples and oranges. Nobody paid protestors or rioters to bother with Trump towers. If somebody did, then they should be liable for the security costs.

If people in a city decide on their own to have protests, then they pay taxes to that city and deserve protection. If somebody is hiring people to get bussed into those cities to start trouble, then they should have to pay the security costs.

Years ago we had a little race track in the area. Regular guys could take their hot rods and race them around the track. They finally had to close down because of the lawsuits. The track owners promoted a potentially dangerous situation for those drivers and spectators. When a part of a car flew off and hit a little girl in the head killing her, that was the end of the race track.

When you purchased an admission ticket, it stated right on there the track was not responsible for damages. That didn't stop the courts from ruling against the track. They felt the track owner was responsible because he set up that deadly situation.

 

[Coyote]

I don't.

Most of "these people" are like most of "those people". They're genuinely angry, feel disenfranchised, are frightened of the way they feel the country is heading. Just like the Trump supporters. I have no doubt if Clinton had won there would be massive questions on legitimacy and there would be protests. As long as they are largely peaceful, it's legitimate free speech and it is their right.

I don't remember any protesters when DumBama won. If there were any, they were so insignificant that nobody paid attention.

There were protestors. Some hung lynched negro effigies. But Obama's election and campaign was not nearly as bizarre and divisive as this year's election has been - even you have to admit, there was little normal or predictive about it. Again - as long as it's peaceful, it's free speech.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't.

Most of "these people" are like most of "those people". They're genuinely angry, feel disenfranchised, are frightened of the way they feel the country is heading. Just like the Trump supporters. I have no doubt if Clinton had won there would be massive questions on legitimacy and there would be protests. As long as they are largely peaceful, it's legitimate free speech and it is their right.

I don't remember any protesters when DumBama won. If there were any, they were so insignificant that nobody paid attention.

There were protestors. Some hung lynched negro effigies. But Obama's election and campaign was not nearly as bizarre and divisive as this year's election has been - even you have to admit, there was little normal or predictive about it. Again - as long as it's peaceful, it's free speech.

Well if you can dig up any videos of those events, I'd sure like to see them.

The only people that made this race divisive are the same people that are protesting it making it even more divisive.

 

[Coyote]

I don't.

Most of "these people" are like most of "those people". They're genuinely angry, feel disenfranchised, are frightened of the way they feel the country is heading. Just like the Trump supporters. I have no doubt if Clinton had won there would be massive questions on legitimacy and there would be protests. As long as they are largely peaceful, it's legitimate free speech and it is their right.

I don't remember any protesters when DumBama won. If there were any, they were so insignificant that nobody paid attention.

There were protestors. Some hung lynched negro effigies. But Obama's election and campaign was not nearly as bizarre and divisive as this year's election has been - even you have to admit, there was little normal or predictive about it. Again - as long as it's peaceful, it's free speech.

Well if you can dig up any videos of those events, I'd sure like to see them.

The only people that made this race divisive are the same people that are protesting it making it even more divisive.

I think Trump's own rhetoric is a big part of the divisiveness. He's reaping what he sowed in his campaign.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't.

Most of "these people" are like most of "those people". They're genuinely angry, feel disenfranchised, are frightened of the way they feel the country is heading. Just like the Trump supporters. I have no doubt if Clinton had won there would be massive questions on legitimacy and there would be protests. As long as they are largely peaceful, it's legitimate free speech and it is their right.

I don't remember any protesters when DumBama won. If there were any, they were so insignificant that nobody paid attention.

There were protestors. Some hung lynched negro effigies. But Obama's election and campaign was not nearly as bizarre and divisive as this year's election has been - even you have to admit, there was little normal or predictive about it. Again - as long as it's peaceful, it's free speech.

Well if you can dig up any videos of those events, I'd sure like to see them.

The only people that made this race divisive are the same people that are protesting it making it even more divisive.

I think Trump's own rhetoric is a big part of the divisiveness. He's reaping what he sowed in his campaign.

Divisive in what way? Trump says what he feels and believes. It's the people listing to him and taking action that makes it divisive.

 

[Coyote]

I don't.

Most of "these people" are like most of "those people". They're genuinely angry, feel disenfranchised, are frightened of the way they feel the country is heading. Just like the Trump supporters. I have no doubt if Clinton had won there would be massive questions on legitimacy and there would be protests. As long as they are largely peaceful, it's legitimate free speech and it is their right.

I don't remember any protesters when DumBama won. If there were any, they were so insignificant that nobody paid attention.

There were protestors. Some hung lynched negro effigies. But Obama's election and campaign was not nearly as bizarre and divisive as this year's election has been - even you have to admit, there was little normal or predictive about it. Again - as long as it's peaceful, it's free speech.

Well if you can dig up any videos of those events, I'd sure like to see them.

The only people that made this race divisive are the same people that are protesting it making it even more divisive.

I think Trump's own rhetoric is a big part of the divisiveness. He's reaping what he sowed in his campaign.

Divisive in what way? Trump says what he feels and believes. It's the people listing to him and taking action that makes it divisive.

Ok, he says what he feels and believes, which is often very divisive. Attacking immigrants, Muslims, Mexican Americans, incouraging violence, his campaign was a very divisive one.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't remember any protesters when DumBama won. If there were any, they were so insignificant that nobody paid attention.

There were protestors. Some hung lynched negro effigies. But Obama's election and campaign was not nearly as bizarre and divisive as this year's election has been - even you have to admit, there was little normal or predictive about it. Again - as long as it's peaceful, it's free speech.

Well if you can dig up any videos of those events, I'd sure like to see them.

The only people that made this race divisive are the same people that are protesting it making it even more divisive.

I think Trump's own rhetoric is a big part of the divisiveness. He's reaping what he sowed in his campaign.

Divisive in what way? Trump says what he feels and believes. It's the people listing to him and taking action that makes it divisive.

Ok, he says what he feels and believes, which is often very divisive. Attacking immigrants, Muslims, Mexican Americans, incouraging violence, his campaign was a very divisive one.

Saying he wants to protect our people here from outsiders is not divisive. Saying that the terrorism we suffered these last eight years are from the Muslim community is not divisive. Saying a judge of Mexican descent may be bias against him because of his immigration stance is not attacking all Mexican Americans. Telling people to protect themselves from troublemakers at his gatherings is not encouraging violence.