Lawyers: Can the "but-for" concept in the law of negligence relate to tfg's role [View all]
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.
= new reply since forum marked as read