Skip to main content

Man Accused of Groping Woman on Flight Said Trump 'Says It's OK'

Summary of Legal Issue
            The FBI has arrested a man by the name of Bruce Alexander for allegedly groping a woman on a Southwest Airlines flight bound for Albuquerque from Houston. Halfway through the flight the woman sitting in front of Bruce claimed that she felt him reaching forward to touch her body around the rib cage area along with her breasts as well. This happened a couple times until she turned around and shouted at the man to stop. The flight attendants moved her seat and had radioed what had happened to ground control. When the plane landed he was taken into custody by the FBI. Once he had been apprehended, he started claiming that the President of the United States, Donald Trump, says it is ok. This claim comes from the access Hollywood tape where Trump notoriously said you can “just grab them by the pussy”. Trump has dismissed this tape as “locker room banter” whatever that seems to mean. Now even though Trump has dismissed these remarks, in this case they were enough to get someone to actually commit abusive sexual contact based on his words alone. Unlike Trump who is able to weasel himself out of sexual assault allegations, Bruce will probably be facing a 250,000 dollar fine along with two years in jail time.

Legal Questions Raised
            In this case the matter in question is whether Trump is actually inciting crime and criminal acts through his speeches, redirect, and overall public presence. Multiple stories have surfaced since his running for election where the accused have quoted Trump or stated that Trump was their motivation for the act. Trump is not aware that his words have a huge negative impact on the people of the country he is ultimately in charge of. He is reckless in putting forward negative redirect that inspires radical believers to commit actions that we as a society have deemed immoral. Trump should face consequences for events like this if he is indeed the motivation for things like assault, sexual assault, and sexual harassment etc. even if Trump is not or cannot be convicted of things like incitement to violence or other negative acts there should still be public discourse around the fact that he is personally have a negative impact on our country and its citizens through his words and actions.

Relevant Doctrine/ Precedent
            Incitement is proven through the Brandenburg test which comes from Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). It can be proven with a two-part test that states the speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action” and the speech is “likely to incite or produce such action”. This case of Trump inciting imminent lawless action is obviously not able to be proven since the act and quote are very far apart from one another. However, his words do seem likely to produce such action based on his track record. He is on record for continuously encouraging violence like when he stated he would pay for people’s legal fees for engaging in violence with protestors saying exactly to “knock the crap out of them, would you?”. So again, this event may not seem to cover to grounds for incitement, but perhaps one day he will meet both criteria for inciting imminent lawless action where he is personally putting the people he is supposed to be protecting in harm’s way.

Conclusion
            Looking back to Bruce Alexander the man on the flight accused of sexual assault, it may seem that he is the simply the next radical whom is willing to follow Trump word for word. What is perhaps a little more unhinging is that he will surely not be the last. Trump’s words have been causing turmoil across the public’s eye for quite a while. However, until he can be proven in court for saying things that get other people in trouble, he is likely to keep committing immoral actions without repercussions. In the end, at least Bruce was apprehended and everything within the story seemed to play out as it should have, when looking at it through the code of law. Hopefully the upcoming midterms can be able to make some positive contributions to situations like these.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Chapter 2 Topic Overview According to the Supreme Court the first amendment is not a hall pass to say whatever you want. This idea is fair under certain circumstances at least in the obvious protection of the greater good so they say, however this does cause problems with the firm trampling of rights. What has been woven in by the founders is the idea that there should be no punishment for any and all truthful criticisms of the government and all its branches. Since there is not a fixed definition to how rule over these issues the courts have avoided broad rulings in turn propagating the current state of media. Media and speech which is broadcasted for the general public is having a big impact on how to protect its speakers and the different types of speech as well. Government actions fall within the power being delegated while the court uses minimum scrutiny or rational review to view what is and is not constitutional about the issue. If laws continuously ha...
Post a Comment
Read more
Chapter 1 Topic Overview The Law of the Land comes about from a number of places throughout the country. These laws are here to define boundaries of acceptable behavior, establishing power and ranges of punishment, and dictating procedures for creating, applying, interpreting, and changing the Law. We can see statutes that are enacted either at the federal or state level and Congress as well as other smaller legislatures are the ones that draft them into being. Although the legislative branch does draft the bills that become laws, they also pass through the executive branch for approval and the judiciary branch for final review. Even though the Judiciary is often looked over it is one of the most powerful branches of government since it holds the ability of judicial review. This means that they ultimately get the final say on what can and cannot become law. Aside from the previously stated responsibility the courts also deal with all cases in either civil o...
Post a Comment
Read more
Topic Review During times of instability within the nation, speech and the freedom of expression in perhaps negative connotations towards the government has and will always be more susceptible of restraint and infringement of personal rights. During such cases where the courts had to come to challenging verdicts it was evident that delineating dangers of incitement versus angry and negative speech would prove challenging. However, protecting national security and stopping immanent violence have proven to be sufficient grounds that outweigh certain speech protections. From such events, we the courts have developed tests like the Brandenburg/Hess Test, which deals with incitement and speech that is more than likely to produce an immediate threat. On top of that courts also rarely find media liable since reasonable people should be able to foresee harm headed their way. Speech needs to become an overt act of threat or intimidation for it to be regulated and punished...
Post a Comment
Read more