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.”

  • 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.

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

        I don’t think that’s what the relevant case law shows. There’s no legal requirement for symmetry between the words uttered and the actions undertaken by others.

        First, we know that because it doesn’t say that in the case law, and second because you can think of obvious examples where the speaker should be in trouble. If I yell at you to punch someone in the face and instead you kick them in the knee, probably I should be held accountable.

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

          Forget symmetry, was there a relevant call to action in this case? An explicit call to action is definitely required for criminal liability…