Louisiana Supreme Court Allows Police Officer's Lawsuit Against Black Lives Matter Organizer
DeRay Mckesson didn’t cause or encourage violence against police in Baton Rouge in 2016. The court says he can still be held responsible.

Louisiana's Supreme Court has ruled 6–1 that a Black Lives Matter organizer can be sued by a police officer for injuries the officer suffered in a Baton Rouge protest in 2016.
The organizer, DeRay Mckesson, was not responsible for the injury to the officer (who is not named). The officer claims that as police were confronting protesters blocking a highway, he suffered head injuries when a protester struck him in the face with thrown rocks or concrete. The officer filed a civil suit attempting to hold Mckesson civilly liable for the incident. Even though Mckesson wasn't personally responsible for the injury, the officer argues that Mckesson should have known that the nature of the protest he organized could provoke a possibly violent confrontation between police and protesters.
Mckesson argued that he was engaging in protected First Amendment speech and can't be sued. The case took a very winding route through federal courts (detailed here in a series of tweets by Houston attorney Raffi Melkonian). It made it up to the Supreme Court, which kicked it back down to the state level to see if the Louisiana Supreme Court could resolve the legal claims before it took up the First Amendment concerns.
But Friday's ruling by the Louisiana Supreme Court probably means the Supreme Court will need to take a look at the case. The majority ruled that state law recognizes that citizens have a duty not to "negligently precipitate the crime of a third party" and that Mckesson could be held civilly accountable.
Louisiana's Supreme Court didn't actually rule that Mckesson was responsible, though. We haven't even gotten to that part yet. This ruling was just over whether, under state law, the police officer could pursue a civil claim against Mckesson. Nevertheless, the potential First Amendment implications here are clear: Freedom of speech allows the right to protest, and Mckesson didn't actually tell protesters to chuck rocks at the police. Justice Piper Griffin warned in her sole dissent about the potential chilling effects and some pretty serious unintended consequences:
It is beyond citation that political protest carries a high moral value in our society. It is also true that protests which turn violent may not only result in injuries to police and bystanders but also damage to businesses and property—deterring such outcomes is sound policy. However, the finding of a duty in this case will have a chilling effect on political protests in general as nothing prevents a bad actor from attending an otherwise peaceful protest and committing acts of violence. While in such instances the organizers of a protest may ultimately be cleared of liability by the trier of fact, the costs of defending a lawsuit at the pre-trial phase are significant.
Over at the online criminal justice and election magazine Bolts, Daniel Nichanian takes note of how this is part of a trend of trying to tamp down on protests by holding organizers and participants legally responsible for any troublemakers. He writes:
Police investigated a Utah senator in 2020 for allegedly donating money to a fund that Black Lives Matter protesters used to buy red paint that they spilled in front of the district attorney's office. Also in 2020, police in Portsmouth, Virginia, filed charges against local Black leaders, including a state senator, who were present at a rally where people toppled a Confederate statue. The police also tried to sideline prosecutor Stephanie Morales, who is Black, though she eventually asserted control and dismissed the charges.
It's always worthy of noting how profoundly different courts treat police officers when the shoe is on the other foot—when police conduct results in innocent people being harmed. Thanks to the legal concept of qualified immunity, police officers often evade civil responsibility when they are personally responsible for violating citizens' civil rights, harming them, or destroying their property. Billy Binion noted last year that Shreveport police officers have been protected from a lawsuit by a man they pulled over and beat up over broken brake and license plate lights.
In that case, the police officers were physically responsible for the victim's harm, yet the courts are shielding them from consequences. Contrast that with what's happening to Mckesson, and it's hard not to think that police officers are under a different set of laws than the citizenry they serve to protect.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
At least it wasn’t a heavily armed deadly insurrection
I am making easily every month $ 22000 to $ 28000 just by doing simple work from home. This job is online and very easy to do part-time or Full-time even no special experience required for this task. (bjh02) Anyone can now participate in this job and start earning just like me by just following link…..
>>>>>>>>>> https://brilliantfuture01.blogspot.com/
Phantom fire extinguishers are nothing to jape about.
Like the one in Kentucky that threatened to burn down the city if they didn't get what they wanted?
Which is why you of course you full throatedly believe that a speaker at a protest that explicitly calls for protestors to be peaceful is in no way legally liable for any actions protestors take counter to that. Or is your TDS too strong for that.
The weeping and crying of Trumpanzee SA wannabees over their Fallen Leader is shifting from piteous to laughable as they generate more and more schadenfreude.
And yet it is you who supports actual neo-Nazi militias in Ukraine.
Fortunately there is nothing pitiable about you. You are just a worthless subhuman piece of shit who will mercifully die very soon from the devastating effects of senile dementia on your already barely-functional brain. We will all laugh heartily when you succumb to the same fate as the actual neo-Nazi armorer currently occupying the presidency. And your ashamed family will breathe a sigh of relief.
The lawyers who argued that Trump is liable for the acts of thugs and hooligans at the Capitol sure convinced the Loyisiana Supreme Court!
Can anyone here think of three Democrats or Republicans who aren't looters, thugs or hooligans?
Considering you were just singing the praises of AOC earlier today, it's nice to see you throw a token reference to the Democrats maybe sometimes not being saintly.
If Rand Paul is a thug/hooligan, he's not very good at it.
"...should have known that the nature of the protest he organized could provoke a possibly violent confrontation between police and protesters."
Oh, Reason is against this now?
It was mostly peaceful.
With a slight chance of arson.
I am making easily every month $ 22000 to $ 28000 just by doing simple work from home. This job is online and very easy to do part-time or Full-time even no special experience required for this task. (nhb28) Anyone can now participate in this job and start earning just like me by just following link…..
>>>>>>>>>> http://CurrentJobs64.Cf
The majority ruled that state law recognizes that citizens have a duty not to "negligently precipitate the crime of a third party"
Because that would never be abused.
Lysander Spooner reminded our Founders' grandsons that the accomplice can never be more guilty than the principal.
Was that between instigating failed slave uprisings that somehow always ended with a pile of dead slaves upon which to climb, but never any injuries or repercussions for the instigator?
The hypocrisy around here has reached ludicrous speed.
I read the whole thing because the framing makes it sound so unreasonable that I'm immediately skeptical.
What it comes down to is that the protest always planned to shut down a state highway, which is illegal. The organizer of the protest was, therefore, explicitly encouraging the commission of lawless acts, and he created the confrontation that was inevitable between police. This is "but for" causation-if not for organizing and encouraging crime-breaking, the police aren't responding, and the officer does not sustain an injury.
IANAL so I can't say how unusual this determination is. I'm not sure how well the case may play in court-the defendant has made statements where he wanted to encourage rioting and protests to the extent the government would have to declare martial law. That certainly doesn't look good even if it's directly correlated to this event.
By "Whole thing," I'll admit I skimmed some repetitive elements of the ruling but got the facts, the ruling, the first concurrence, and the dissent. The dissent is extremely light on the facts but brings up the "chilling effect," without really addressing the fact that the organizer was asking people to break the law, and talked about how the jury might end up with a bad finding due to political biases.
I am of mixed feelings, mostly because I don't know all the details, and what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I want police held accountable when they screw up, so when they are victims, their attacker needs to be held accountable too.
1. Police get the benefit of the doubt far more than their victims, so it feels good when a policeman loses the benefit of the doubt.
2. Shutting down the highway was an intentional illegal act, and the organizer deserves to be held accountable for disrupting traffic and inconveniencing thousands of people, and possibly directly hurting people whose ambulances or other first responders were slowed down. Actions have consequences.
3. If this had been during the last two summers of Burn Loot Murder riots, I'd say any BLM-organized protest had too high a risk of violence to give him any "I didn't think it would be violent" excuse. But this was 2016.
4. It comes down to a jury deciding how much responsibility the organizer bore for the violence, and that requires a trial.
5. As for Trump and Jan 6th, what a stretch! Only the police were armed, and the only death was a cop shooting an unarmed woman. The vandalism was a big nothing burger. The work of Congress was delayed in a purely trivial fashion, and I personally find that a feature, not a flaw, nothing to lose sleep over. No one except Congress was inconvenienced.
They also beat a woman to death
Who is they and what woman? If you have a story no one is telling the media will pay handsomely for it even if it is only innuendo and propaganda they can spin.
"They" is the capitol police, and the woman was Rosanne Boyland. A capitol cop caved her skull in with a steel baton on video. Much like the racist capitol cop who shot an unarmed white woman despite the present of a 4-man SWAT team standing less than 10 feet behind her who did not view her as a threat, and despite the fact that she had been engaging in peaceful conversation with other officers mere minutes before she was murdered, the cop who caved in Rosanne Boyland's skull also escaped without charges.
Happy to clear that up for you, you pig-ignorant subhuman bootlicking Nazi faggot.
If you have a story no one is telling the media will pay handsomely for it even if it is only innuendo and propaganda they can spin.
WTHF? What media are you paying attention too? I'd put them about equally likely to pay to publish as to pay to bury with the likelihood being heavily swayed by the superficial narrative the bare facts generate.
He should have his personal assets seized, and anyone who donated to BLM should have their bank accounts frozen
I think the chilling effect is important. Take another example: The Trucker protest in Ottawa.
Let's pretend, for just a moment, that like the BLM riots of 2020, a large contingent of the truckers burned buildings down, killed people, attacked police, smashed windows etc., would we hold the erstwhile organizers of the Trucker protest (who themselves never explicitly ordered any rioting) responsible for the ensuing lawlessness? I would submit that we should not.
What makes me happy about this article is that Reason has come around to finally say some strong words about the trucker protest in Ottawa, even if it had to come by way of supporting a BLM activists right to organize a protest that turned violent.
You take what you can.
You got me curious. Do you think there is no possible case of holding a protest organizer responsible for a protest that gets out of hand? My thinking is that the degree of responsibility is something for a jury to decide. A BLM protest in the summer of 2020 is predictably more likely to be violent than a St Patrick's Day parade; shouldn't a jury decide the responsibility?
The obvious counter-example is a black civil rights parade in the summer of 1930. But I submit the difference is entirely with what the parade participants do, not how the crowd reacts. The 1930 violence would come from the white crowds, not the black marchers, and to hold the parade organizer responsible is a true heckler's veto. The St Patrick's Day parade is likely to have a few drunks causing trouble, but that's why the organizer hires police along the route. 2020 BLM protests have a track record of Burning Looting and Murdering, so that is on the organizer.
In all cases, including this one, the people who threw the brick, burned buildings, looted, murdered, and otherwise turned criminal, have the ultimate responsibility. But it seems to me a jury should decide how much responsibility the organizer had for predictable criminality by the participants.
"A BLM protest in the summer of 2020 is predictably more likely to be violent than a St Patrick's Day parade; shouldn't a jury decide the responsibility?"
I think that is partially a non-starter. If people showing up for violence is likely, that doesn't suddenly prevent you from protesting. Imagine if Soros were to fund a group of Antifa people who promised to counterprotest your Freedom Trucker rally. You as the organizer know that there is a possibility that they are able to instigate a fight...but does that mean you now have to skip the protest?
In So-Cal, what I observed of the BLM protests was that highschool kids and white suburbanites showed up for awhile to march around, and then as the day went on, they would leave, to be replaced by antifa fuckheads. Often violence wouldn't start until after the protest was "scheduled" on the organizer websites, although you would be hard pressed to tell when one ended and the other started. Nancy Rommlemann's dispatches from Portland tend to show the same patterns.
I think it is one thing to encourage lawbreaking- as this guy did- and thus have a high likelihood that it will result in confrontations between the police and people you've solicited to protest. But if you were organizing peaceful protest, the threat that others might be too rowdy should not be on you. IMHO.
By night 50 put of over 100 in Portland everyone knew violence would occur. Are they still peacefully protesting until the first fireworks are lit?
I understand that and agree with it ... mostly. But if you know that any rally you organize will attract only violent participants, why is that not on you? What if you have organized 100 of these rallies, and the last 50 have only attracted 100% violent participants?
At some point, you know your rallies will only attract 100% violent participants. Do you bear no responsibility?
On the other hand, if that is what happens, it also means that those violent participants are probably going to be violent even if you do not organize a rally. So maybe it's a false hypothetical.
And in between, did BLM rallies turn violent often enough that it should be treated as so predictable that any BLM organizer should be held accountable?
Except I don't think any of the protests actually attracted 100% violent people. There was three different groups on the "supporting" side. There were the Antifa poltroons, who were there for the explicit purpose of starting shit and breaking things. There were the people who were there for the explicit purpose of granting those people cover to move under, by being relatively innocent looking, so they could get shots of cops pushing old ladies around. And then there were the useful idiots, who were really there to actually protest things and could not, for the life of them, understand how they were providing cover to the other two groups. At least as far as I could get trying to talk to a couple of people in the third category.
Really depends on how straight line the protest setup is to the violence given the group involved. I'd say the city officials and antifa organizers for Charlottesville should be held liable ed because their every action was planned to ratchet up the confrontation. Organizers of day 1&2 BLM protests, probably not but day 10-100 and CHAZ, then absolutely. The later days were more known cover for the planned riots than any sort of peaceful protest.
The confrontation in Charlottesville was initiated by the counter protest that outnumbers the original protestirs by 3 or 4 to 1.
Violence is acceptable if you are doing it for a leftist cause.
If you do it for any other reason, you're a traitor, an insurrectionist, a fascist, a racist and a meany.
Just ask any proggie.
The freedom convoy also blocked roads, so lawsuits like this could be a slippery slope.
But given that BLM is a violent organization that targets a specific group as much as the Klan does, there should be some leash given to victims in cases like this. Riots and assaults are not covered by 1A. Of course the burden of on the part of the plaintiff would be high.
Don't try and apply US law to Canadian examples, the freedoms that we Americans enjoy eclipses anything a Canadian citizen enjoys - the easiest example, Canadians don't enjoy a right to free speech that Americans enjoy.
Freedom convoy actually left a single lane free and even helped emergency vehicles get through.
DeRay Mckesson didn’t cause or encourage violence against police in Baton Rouge in 2016. The court says he can still be held responsible.
Something something January 6th.
The organizer brought people together to commit a crime, to unlawfully assemble and block a highway, under the guise of fighting police brutality. What steps, if any, did the organizer of this event take to keep people safe at his event? There in lies his responsibility. Did he say "don't bring weapons?" Did he say "don't commit acts of violence?" Did he say "don't attack the police?" No. He brought hundreds of people together, but couldn't even bring himself to attend the protest he organized - what?
This organizer was at the protest, and was seen giving directions, and was not seen trying to calm down the protests. If there was evidence of him trying to keep the crowd peaceful, the lawsuit probably wouldn't go forward, but he was egging the protest on even as it became a riot.
wait, we don't get QI against the police?
No, that's why he sued this dude instead of Maxine Waters.
negligently precipitate the crime of a third party
A crime is an intentional act. Negligence cannot cause an intentional act. It's absurd.
The crime was organizing people to block the highway, which was intentional. There's no accident in organizing the protest when this is exactly what he wanted to do.
Get drunk and plow into a pedestrian with your car, see if they don't charge you with committing an unintentional criminal act.
Negligence itself is a crime you abject fucking clown. Stick to writing your pro-pedo bullshit, Jakie. The only worse than your brown envelope hackery is when you actually try to have an original thought. You are the poster child for the dangers of marijuana on an already sub-average intellect.
Goddamn you're an idiot, Strudel. In just about every field there are provisions for criminal negligence.
You know, like the federal charges Hillary weaseled out of with her private email.
Anyone with any faith in courts in this country needs a kick in the balls.
To paraphrase Winston Churchill: the legal system in this country is absolutely the worst, except for the all the other ones.
That used to be what Reason was for. Balko used to deliver daily nutpunches.
is that why?
Considering your unwavering support for the FISA court that allowed secret spying on a presidential candidate based on a fabricated document for which an FBI agent was convicted of criminal fraud, this is fucking rich.
So, what DID cause you to decide to not be a frotting leftist this year?
Change from Thunderbird to Wild Turkey?
This is great!
Now do the guy who made a speech explicitly calling for peaceful protest.
Don't you mean racist dog whistles?
So you cunts are still okay with the "organizer" of j6 getting fucked when no stazi were harmed
Linked it in the roundup without a word of criticism. Reason has lost all credibility.
The law is now nothing more than a weapon to coerce you into marching peacefully toward your own serfdom, or to shield the paramilitaries who will force you in that direction.
The land of the free and home of the brave is no more; welcome to the USSA.
"DeRay Mckesson didn’t cause or encourage violence against police in Baton Rouge in 2016. The court says he can still be held responsible."
Please do not use the ugly word "responsible."
It is offensive, politically incorrect and makes people think they're accountable for their actions.
Only a racist, a fascist or someone who believes in personal credibility would be so mean to even think of such a word.
Unless there is substantial and nearly identical legal precedent I don't see any reason why he wouldn't be able to receive qualified immunity. He didn't violate any of the officers rights.
Uh, see below. David Duke was both convicted of inciting a riot in '72 and settled a Civil Suit filed by a man injured by the driver in Charlottesville. Their larger merits could be argued either way, BLM has, supposedly, never lynched anybody but, conversely, Duke himself never lynched anybody and was actually moving to pacify and liberalize the Klan, but with regard to facts under the law and merits of going to trial, I see zero substantial difference between Duke and McKesson.
I'm not really concerned as to whether Duke, any given officer, or Mckesson succeeds or fails at trial, but to say that police get immunity, Mckesson gets immunity, and Duke doesn't is every bit as elitist and racist as if any two got immunity and the other didn't.
In Texas all the cop would have to do is allege the dark gentleman was carrying a condom and conspiring at birth control. Governor Babbitt could then unleash hounds and vigilantes to hale the guy into stacked instances of civil cases until he was bled white.
Condoms and birth control are legal in every state in the union, Hankie. If you had ever managed to trick or coerce a woman into fucking you, you might be a little more clued in on the developments in the legal status of rubbers and birth control since the late 1800s.
And considering you spent most of your afternoon calling Clarence Thomas a nigger, your insinuations of racism are rather fucking rich. Keep projecting you mentally diseased piece of shit.
What a strange comment
Why would DeRay be expected to anticipate a problem like this when organizing a group of angry BLM in front of a police station blocking a street? In all honesty would anyone not be surprised the police responded and it turned into a riot? BLM is noted for peaceful riots, opps I mean protests and everyone was taken aback by their violence. Apparently his friends from the riot believe he should be held accountable or they would identify the person responsible.
If your organizing "protests" for a group that has been violent all over the country than it is reasonable to assume that group would once again turn to violence. The leaders of BLM should be held accountable not only for the disappearance of millions of dollars but for the violence, arson and looting that took place during their protests. BLM should have all of it's assets seized and companies that donated to one of the largest grifts in history should be sued by their stockholders for Breach.
Beyond BLM and Jan. 6th, as a reminder:
In January 1972, [David] Duke was arrested in New Orleans for inciting a riot. Several racial confrontations broke out that month in the city, including one at the Robert E. Lee Monument involving Duke, Addison Roswell Thompson—a perennial segregationist candidate for governor of Louisiana and mayor of New Orleans—and his 89-year-old friend and mentor, Rene LaCoste (not to be confused with the French tennis player René Lacoste). Thompson and LaCoste dressed in Klan robes for the occasion and placed a Confederate flag at the monument. The Black Panthers began throwing bricks at the two men, but police arrived in time to prevent serious injury.
In 1974, Duke founded the Louisiana-based Knights of the Ku Klux Klan (KKKK), shortly after graduating from LSU. He became the youngest ever grand wizard of the KKKK in 1976. Duke first received broad public attention during this time, as he endeavored to market himself in the mid-1970s as a new brand of Klansman: well-groomed, engaged, and professional. Duke also reformed the organization, promoting nonviolence and legality, and, for the first time in the Klan's history, women were accepted as equal members and Catholics were encouraged to apply for membership. Duke would repeatedly insist that the Klan was "not anti-black" but rather "pro-white" and "pro-Christian". Duke told the British Daily Telegraph newspaper that he left the Klan in 1980 because he disliked its associations with violence and could not stop the members of other Klan chapters from doing "stupid or violent things".
Reason Magazine,
Free Minds and Free MarketsNarrowly And Concertedly Advocating For People More Actively Racist, Violent, and Stupid Than David Duke.For a site on board with punishing Trump over 1/6 --- you have no room to bitch about this.
I guess it is only okay to hold protest organizers responsible for harm caused by their protests if they are conservatives like with the trucker protest in Canada which was irritating but not violent. BLM organized a protest and this policeman was injured as a direct result. Why shouldn’t he be able to sue. After all, rioters sue the police when the get injured as a result of the riots they themselves started. Sauce for the goose.
You hold the complete opposite opinion when it comes to suing or keeping people in jail for having the wrong opinions about the 2020 election. The whole "libertarian, but only to the extent its palatable for white progressives" is just too obvious at this point.
Nobody is in jail for "having the wrong opinions". They are there for participating in the attempted overthrow of the US government by attacking the US Capitol. There's a difference between those two things.
Judges have denied bail to people being charged with misdemeanors because they suspect they don't believe the 2020 election was valid.
The consequences of January 6th has proven that there is no more disingenuous and hypocritical position than that of the faux "criminal justice" reformers
Now apply this standard to Trump and every other speaker at the pre-insurrection rally...
You've got your post hoc backwards. Not sure about every other speaker, but, aside from the Congressional investigation, Trump has been sued by something like 4 capitol police officers and several members of Congress to varying degrees of success. If Trump, who wasn't President when the suits were filed, can be sued so prolifically, I don't see why Mckesson is immune.
You people are living up to every inch of Wells' Eloi. Completely unaware of the hazards posed by the reality around you or the Morlocks coming in the night to harvest you like cattle.