Lawyers: Can the "but-for" concept in the law of negligence relate to tfg's role

[LuckyCharms]

in the 1/6 insurrection? I have a pretty good understanding of the "but-for" concept, but I'm not sure if it applies when considering options for prosecuting tfg.

I just pulled this off a Google search page:

What is the but for clause?

The but-for test says that an action is a cause of an injury if, but for the action, the injury wouldn't have occurred. In other words, would the harm have occurred if the defendant hadn't acted in the way they did? If the answer is NO, then the action caused the harm.

In my layman's terms: Would the insurrection have occurred if tfg did not take the many actions that he did in order to rile his masses? If the answer can be proven in court to be "no", then is it important to get inside tfg's head and offer irrefutable proof to a jury that his INTENT was to cause the insurrection?

Just throwing this out there for discussion.

[elleng]

1. Has nothing to do with what was in his head,

BUT FOR, that is IF he hadn't taken actions, it would NOT have occurred.

[LuckyCharms]

2. That's what I'm trying to say...

There seems to be attention focused on the notion that it must be proven that tfg planned and intended for the insurrection to occur.

My thought is that if, in the eyes of the law, the "but-for" concept is applicable in a circumstance like this, then couldn't this concept be used as a successful prosecutorial tactic, regardless of tfg's intent? If so, then proving tfg's intentions is moot.

[elleng]

3. Maybe; intent may be irrelevant.

[Solomon]

5. The thing the "you have to prove intent" people are missing is that intent can be inferred.

This idea that you can't prove intent is driving me up the wall. Reminds me of how people kept saying "he didn't say quid pro quo so there was no quid pro quo".

[elleng]

6. Right, and 'intent,' 'mens rea', is relevant in criminal trials,

distinguished from other legal proceedings.

the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a crime, as opposed to the action or conduct of the accused.

mens rea, in Anglo-American law, criminal intent or evil mind. In general, the definition of a criminal offense involves not only an act or omission and its consequences but also the accompanying mental state of the actor. All criminal systems require an element of criminal intent for most crimes.

The Model Penal Code recognizes four different levels of mens rea: purpose (same as intent), knowledge, recklessness and negligence.

There are several available mens rea standards including negligence, knowledge, wilfulness, recklessness, general intent or specific intent.

[Scottie Mom]

4. "But for..." certain conduct a result would not have come about

Negligence has 4 elements: Duty, breach, causation, and damages.

In causation, there is “but for” and “proximate” cause. The latter means the result had to be foreseeable. Both forms of causation, along with the other elements, must be found for liability to attach. This is civil liability.