The leader of a nonprofit representing the Haitian community of Springfield, Ohio, filed criminal charges Tuesday against former President Donald Trump and his running mate, JD Vance, over the chaos and threats experienced by the city since Trump first spread false claims about legal immigrants there during a presidential debate.

The Haitian Bridge Alliance invoked its private-citizen right to file the charges in the wake of inaction by the local prosecutor, said their attorney, Subodh Chandra of the Cleveland-based Chandra Law Firm.

“Their persistence and relentlessness, even in the face of the governor and the mayor saying this is false, that shows intent,” Chandra said. “It’s knowing, willful flouting of criminal law.”

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      ·
      3 months ago

      It’s a sad indictment of the American legal system that people advocate for, and are excited at the prospect of, mere civil penalties for things that are actual crimes, not just torts. Why do we have so much trouble applying real consequences with teeth to people that actually deserve them?

      These are criminal charges. The correct course of action isn’t to sue them; it’s to lock them the fuck up!

      • mycelium underground@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Will the best option would be a criminal case and a civil case. Best part of a civil case is that it does not have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, just more likely than not.

        Take their money AND lock them up.

        Edit: corrected autocorrect

    • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      3 months ago

      my only hope that the last flicker of consciousness in his brain as he dies will be an eternity of torment that he rightfully deserves.

      our subconscious mind is our personal worst enemy and I truly hope his is just as monstrous and evil as his conscious mind; and when he has nobody else to torment, his mind will turn on him for a trillion lifetimes.

      • Hobbes@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        unfortunately, I don’t think that he actually believes in Christianity, because if he did, he would believe in hell and he would know that that’s where he’s going. Even though it’s all fairytale.

    • jaybone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      3 months ago

      Yeah I hate to be a bummer hear (or maybe just a realist) but here’s just one more criminal and/or civil case in an endless list for which Trump will never see any kind of justice. Zzzz so tiring.

  • Soup@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    3 months ago

    Any legal experts able to weigh in on the chances of this actually making any impact whatsoever?

    • Atrichum@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      3 months ago

      Some context from a mod at /r/law

      https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test

      Selected Applications of the Brandenburg Test The Supreme Court in Hess v. Indiana (1973) applied the Brandenburg test to a case in which Gregory Hess, an Indiana University protester, said, “We’ll take the fucking street later (or again)." The Supreme Court ruled that Hess’s profanity was protected under the Brandenburg test, as the speech “amounted to nothing more than advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time.” The Court held that “since there was no evidence, or rational inference from the import of the language, that his words were intended to produce, and likely to produce, imminent disorder, those words could not be punished by the State on the ground that they had a ‘tendency to lead to violence.’”

      In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co.(1982), Charles Evers threatened violence against those who refused to boycott white businesses. The Supreme Court applied the Brandenburg test and found that the speech was protected: “Strong and effective extemporaneous rhetoric cannot be nicely channeled in purely dulcet phrases. An advocate must be free to stimulate his audience with spontaneous and emotional appeals for unity and action in a common cause. When such appeals do not incite lawless action, they must be regarded as protected speech.”

      Brandenburg Test:

      https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/brandenburg_test

      The test determined that the government may prohibit speech advocating the use of force or crime if the speech satisfies both elements of the two-part test:

      The speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” AND

      The speech is “likely to incite or produce such action.”

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 months ago

        Also of note, this is a very high standard. The KKK regularly says the same kind of stuff that Vance and Trump said and get away with it

      • VerdantSporeSeasoning@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        I wonder if all the schools and hospitals and government buildings having to close and/or evacuate due to bomb threats will be enough for the burden of proof. It’s not directly threatening language, but it certainly was a tangible, disruptive result.

        • homesnatch@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          Results are not relevant for proof unless they verbally requested that people call in bomb threats.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      Thanks, I was wondering. Generally speaking “pressing charges” isn’t something private citizens do like is shown in movies, but I guess it is a thing in Ohio.