Welcome to From Insults To Respect.

In recent news articles, we have learned that a group of people who were demonstrating in front of Trump Tower are suing Trump and his company for damages from what they claim was his security officers’ “wanton and malicious assaults and batteries.” Trump denied under oath knowing anything about the incident until a day after it happened, but his former lawyer Michael Cohen said he was an eye witness to Trump ordering the confrontation, according to newly filed court papers.

Michael Cohen

Cohen is not viewed as the most reliable of witnesses because of his history of lying to Congress about Trump’s business dealings with Russia, for which he served some time in prison. Nevertheless, he now has agreed to make his current testimony under oath on May 17th. He would be risking going to prison again if he is found lying, and he has nothing monetarily to gain from providing his testimony.

Benjamin Dictor

The protesters’ lawyer, Benjamin Dictor, well knows he can’t depend entirely on Cohen’s testimony to win his case. Thus, he will present testimony from the numerous eye witnesses who were present. He is also including deposition excerpts in the court filing that show Trump on numerous occasions encouraging violence, many of which have been impressively documented by the New York Times, (see HERE). To take one example, there are recorded comments he had made about protesters during his 2016 presidential campaign, including a rally where he told attendees that “if you see someone getting ready to throw a tomato, just knock the crap out of them, would you?”

Trump defended his comment by saying, “It was very dangerous, We were threatened. They were going to throw fruit, very violent stuff.” He made his encouragement for violence at a time when no one had thrown anything.

As another example, there is a video clip showing security going through the process of peacefully removing an interrupter at a rally, while Mr. Trump cries,

“I love the old days. You know what they used to do to guys like that when they were in a place like this? They would be carried out in a stretcher, folks. I’d like to punch him in the face, I tell you.”

After another incident of this kind, Mr. Trump, when questioned about it by a reporter, stated, “This guy started screaming by himself, and, I don’t know, roughed up, he should have, maybe he should have been roughed up because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing.” Then he said, “Violence would help to deter protesters.”

In perhaps the most disturbing example that I have seen before the January 6 attack speech, Mr. Trump is seen defending a guy who had just sucker punched an interrupter who was being peacefully escorted out of an arena. When Mr. Trump was asked about this incident by a reporter, he answered, “He (the guy who sucker punched the protester) obviously loves this country, and maybe he doesn’t like seeing what’s happening to the country.”

To be fair, Mr. Trump sometimes says he doesn’t condone the violence. But then he says things like, “In the good old days this doesn’t happen because they used to treat them very, very rough. And when they protested once, you know, they would not do it again so easily.”

So, if he thinks those were the “good old days,” it sure sounds to me that he wishes we could be discouraging protesters by doing this type of thing today.

In addition to using these publicly available examples of Trump supporting violence, the evidence to be provided to a jury will include numerous examples of his fast and loose, misleading statements about the facts of a case. For example, after stating he didn’t know about the incident until the next day, he then began to defend his bodyguard, Keith Schiller:

So, we see here that first he says he didn’t know about the incident until the next day, but then claims he knows the protesters were dressed as Ku Klux Klansmen. Pictures from the demonstration showed two persons dressed as Klansmen while attempting to illustrate that they thought Trump is a racist like Klansmen are. Then, Trump, probably recognizing he is under oath, hedges his statement by saying, “or whatever.” He then says his bodyguard was attacked from behind and they tried to get his gun, but then, again undoubtedly recognizing he is under oath, he claims he doesn’t know if he was carrying a gun, but if he was, they were obviously trying to get it.

I don’t know for sure, but my guess is this testimony, and others like it, when laid out in front of a jury is likely to indicate Trump is willing to make up any story to help his case, but is constrained during his testimony because lying under oath is seriously different then his statements at rallies where he can claim first amendment rights to protect him. Under oath, lying is against the law and a person can be charged with a felony for doing so.

So, this is where the case stands. And now I hear Trump supporters say that Trump is right for encouraging violence against anyone that might dare to protest against him. Let’s examine this position.

The Trump Supporters versus the Trump Rally Interrupters’ Conflict

Trump supporters desire that at the rallies they attend for Mr. Trump they get to hear what he has to say without interruptions. They view the interrupters as interfering with this desire when Mr. Trump is trying to speak at the rally, and an interrupter begins shouting. Trump supporters typically would say they believe interrupters are guilty of doing something wrong when they interrupt, and many support violence against the interrupters.

This conflict statement is my best guess of the perspective of Trump supporters with regard to his position and dealing with rally interrupters. I have derived it from discussions that I personally have had with a few of his supporters, and what I have heard from them during TV interviews.

My Views On Trump’s Violence Advocacy

First of all, at the outset, let me say that I have some sympathy for the Trump supporters regarding their perspective on this conflict. I hold the position that regardless of who the rally is for, those who come to hear the candidate should be able to do so without people interrupting him or her.

There are fair opportunities for demonstrators from the full spectrum of opinions to put forth their views as people file into the site of the rally and when people leave. As long as this is done peacefully and without interfering with the flow of people into and out of the site, this seems consistent with principles of free speech which is something I personally treasure.

Once in the arena, I believe the candidate should be treated civilly. Interrupting the candidate’s speech is not in the interest of the supporters who took the time to get to the site, nor is it in the interest of the interrupters.

Interrupters, by their actions, will only succeed in hardening the positions of the supporters who tend to become infuriated at such interruptions.

That said, I do disagree that there is no better way to deal with rally interrupters than beating them up. These types of interruptions is a commonly resolved problem candidates have been facing for years. The best minds in professional arena security personnel and law enforcement have designed a process to deal with these types of situations. The process varies slightly from place to place, but basically it goes like this:

Typically, whenever someone begins to create a disruption, security officials hustle over and firmly inform the interrupter that if he or she continues to do anything that seeks to disrupt the speaker, he or she will be ushered out of the rally site. This usually takes a few seconds and is sufficient in most cases to settle things down.

If not, several additional security officials are called. When they arrive, they now are an overwhelming presence and are well trained to handle aggressive conduct.

The disrupter is then told, “You now have a choice, either agree to be ushered out of the rally site with us, or law enforcement will be summoned. If law enforcement is summoned, you will be placed in handcuffs, arrested, charged with disturbing the peace, taken to the police station, and you could end up facing a fine and/or imprisonment. Moreover, once law officers arrive, any effort that you make to avoid the law officers’ arrest will lead to the far more serious charge of resisting arrest. So, those are your options–either you now come peacefully with us as we usher you out of here, or deal with law enforcement. We recommend coming with us. Let’s go.” Then the security officials firmly, but not violently, lead the interrupter away.

This message to the interrupter takes less than two minutes and in the vast majority of incidents it is sufficient to peacefully resolve this type of situation. In my opinion, Mr. Trump is not doing security any favors when, during this process, he begins to taunt the disrupter.

The effective use of the technique I just described works best when the disrupter is in a state that he or she can think somewhat reasonably. Mr. Trump’s baiting disrupters while the process is going on increases the probability of igniting rage within the interrupter, and the probability of violence goes up. Even well trained security personnel can become injured dealing with this, and the whole process can take far more time to resolve.

Moreover, Mr. Trump’s actions tend to drum up rage against the interrupter, and as we saw in one incident, this led to a Trump supporter sucker punching him. Further, the rage that is produced at the rally, when witnessed on TV, leads to further rage. We saw this happening on March 11, 2016 in Chicago shortly after Trump’s taunting was televised. Trump supporters and protesters clashed so viciously that the event had to be cancelled. Then, the next day, at another rally, this one in Vandalia, Ohio, a furious man jumped a barrier and rushed the stage. No one was hurt, but Mr. Trump was obviously shaken up from the incident, sweating profusely. The January 6 storming of the Capitol is the most devastating example.

In my opinion, we are much better off letting security and law enforcement do their job without wildly throwing out taunts and supporting the days when it was okay to beat up people.

Similarly, if Trump felt those demonstrations in front of Trump Tower should not be happening, he always has the option of calling law enforcement, expressing his concern, and then letting them decide if any laws are being broken, and if so, law enforcement will professionally handle the situation. In the case currently under way, he was clearly not in any danger. He claims he didn’t even know about the incident until the next day. Even if he knew about the incident as it was going on, he was safely in his office numerous floors above the event.

———————
Some people will enjoy reading this blog by beginning with the first post and then moving forward to the next more recent one; then to the next one; and so on. This permits readers to catch up on some ideas that were presented earlier and to move through all of the ideas in a systematic fashion to develop their emotional intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.

Trump advocating violenceTrump Tower demonstrators lawsuit