Extinction Rebellion: Jury acquits protesters despite judge's direction

[Angilion]

So like almost everything in history, ever?

Rarely has there been a major historical event where 'the winners' didn't do bad things? Do we think the Allies in WW2 were all saintly? No, but they were better than Nazis and Fascists.

And, as you have just shown, the negative aspects are widely acknowledged. Unlike in the previous cases mentioned, which have been very heavily sanitised to the extent that most people don't know what happened. More like wartime propaganda of WW2.

As a counter-example to the first example, there's the voting reform campaigners who actually did the work. They didn't commit crimes solely for the purpose of getting arrested so they could lie about it and say they'd been arrested for campaigning for voting reform. Not that they would have had to - in many cases they actually were arrested for campaigning for voting reform. In some cases killed, the best known example being the Peterloo massacre. They also didn't attack people, commit arson and plant bombs in public places to kill as many people as possible. The suffragettes came along near the end of the campaign, did all those things and only stopped because they decided they wouldn't get away with them during WW1, so they switched to harassing men instead. It's more likely that the suffragettes delayed women getting the vote than that they hastened it. The government didn't want to be seen to be giving in to terrorists. There had already been 4 major voting reform acts before the suffragettes even existed, the first establishing nationwide criteria for who had the privilege of voting and the following ones each extending the number of people with the privilege of voting. The next one, which would have happened soon anyway, was universal adult suffrage. As an aside, another difference that I think is important is that the voting reform campaign groups were themselves democratic and operated on a one member one vote basis whereas the suffragettes weren't and didn't. They were out for power, not democracy.

As another aside, one of the major Allies was worse than the non-nazi fascists (Italy and Spain come to mind) and arguably as bad as the nazis.

But none of that changes the point that it's not certain that any group that does bad things will later be beatified by a very well executed and sustained propganda campaign. Even if they win and become the dominant power, it's still not certain.

 

[Energize]

Honestly that is the most silly thing I think I have ever hear anyone say. A jury is not supposed and never should be deciding what laws are fair and what are not. That's not it's purpose at all.

Don't be melodramatic. They absolutely should be, otherwise we have draconian laws being thrust on the people by the government.

 

[pp111]

Don't be melodramatic. They absolutely should be, otherwise we have draconian laws being thrust on the people by the government.

I am not being melodramatic at all. It is honestly nuts to suppose that the way to make the law acceptable is to employ members of the public who just ignore the law. I mean that's tin-foil hat stuff. If people don't like the law then the law should be changed, not just completely ignored. Otherwise you are just promoting anarchy.

 

[MikeTimbers]

I am not being melodramatic at all. It is honestly nuts to suppose that the way to make the law acceptable is to employ members of the public who just ignore the law. I mean that's tin-foil hat stuff. If people don't like the law then the law should be changed, not just completely ignored. Otherwise you are just promoting anarchy.

and how do people show they "don't like the law"? One way is by refusing to convict.

 

[Energize]

I am not being melodramatic at all. It is honestly nuts to suppose that the way to make the law acceptable is to employ members of the public who just ignore the law. I mean that's tin-foil hat stuff. If people don't like the law then the law should be changed, not just completely ignored. Otherwise you are just promoting anarchy.

Lol, promoting anarchy, "tin foil hat", you get more melodramatic with every post.

It's called checks and balances, something necessary in a free democratic society.

 

[dl8860]

I'm normally pretty pro-establishment, and I also have some misgivings about the jury system in general, but this is a good result. Climate change is an emergency and those of us including myself who aren't seriously troubling our own lives to do anything about it are privileged that other people do so.

 

[deuse]

You're a proponent of conviction and imprisonment without trial, interesting.



Even in Florida I don't believe they would send you to prison for six months without a judicial process where you plead, or are found, guilty.



It's part of the evidence which the alledged perpetrator might accept as sufficient proof to plead guilty or a jury might accept as sufficient proof to convict.

Sorry for the late reply.

You must have missed my post.

"You can have your trial.
But then you could put on new charges like reckless endangerment\Trespass which will\could turn out to be bigger sentencing.
So take your pick. Do the time. We have the video and other proof or roll the dice."

 

[Tony Edwards]

You're a proponent of conviction and imprisonment without trial, interesting.

Even in Florida I don't believe they would send you to prison for six months without a judicial process where you plead, or are found, guilty.

This same Florida?

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/26/us/florida-centner-academy-vaccine.html

A private school in the fashionable Design District of Miami sent its faculty and staff a letter last week about getting vaccinated against Covid-19. But unlike institutions that have encouraged and even facilitated vaccination for teachers, the school, Centner Academy, did the opposite: One of its co-founders, Leila Centner, informed employees “with a very heavy heart” that if they chose to get a shot, they would have to stay away from students.

In an example of how misinformation threatens the nation’s effort to vaccinate enough Americans to get the coronavirus under control, Ms. Centner, who has frequently shared anti-vaccine posts on Facebook, claimed in the letter that “reports have surfaced recently of non-vaccinated people being negatively impacted by interacting with people who have been vaccinated.”

“Even among our own population, we have at least three women with menstrual cycles impacted after having spent time with a vaccinated person,” she wrote, repeating a false claim that vaccinated people can somehow pass the vaccine to others and thereby affect their reproductive systems. (They can do neither.)

In the letter, Ms. Centner gave employees three options:

• Inform the school if they had already been vaccinated, so they could be kept physically distanced from students;
  
  
• Let the school know if they get the vaccine before the end of the school year, “as we cannot allow recently vaccinated people to be near our students until more information is known”;
  
  
• Wait until the school year is over to get vaccinated.

Teachers who get the vaccine over the summer will not be allowed to return, the letter said, until clinical trials on the vaccine are completed, and then only “if a position is still available at that time” — effectively making teachers’ employment contingent on avoiding the vaccine.

It wouldnt surprise me.

 

[deuse]

This same Florida?

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/26/us/florida-centner-academy-vaccine.htmlIt wouldnt surprise me.

It's a private school.
Nothing anyone can do.

No different from the woke professor at Cypress College CA
If she was getting raped she would call a person to talk to them!

 

[Tony Edwards]

No different from the woke professor at Cypress College CA
If she was getting raped she would call a person to talk to them!

How can it be no different?

In an example of how misinformation threatens the nation’s effort to vaccinate enough Americans to get the coronavirus under control, Ms. Centner, who has frequently shared anti-vaccine posts on Facebook, claimed in the letter that “reports have surfaced recently of non-vaccinated people being negatively impacted by interacting with people who have been vaccinated.”

 

[deuse]

How can it be no different?

She is telling students not to call police if there life was in danger.
Same as telling people not to take the vaccine.

Both silly.

 

[Tony Edwards]

She is telling students not to call police if there life was in danger.
Same as telling people not to take the vaccine.

Both silly.

No she isnt AND she isnt pushing proven CT nonsense.

 

[deuse]

No she isnt AND she isnt pushing proven CT nonsense.

The 2 people are having a go at the student.
When asked if she would call the police, she says no.

So. If someone asks her if they should call the police if in danger. She would say NO.

A silly thing to say.

She is not there now....wonder why?

"A left-wing California college professor who defended cancel culture and repeatedly talked down to a student who called police "heroes" has herself been canceled after video of the virtual class went viral."

 

[Tony Edwards]

The 2 people are having a go at the student.
When asked if she would call the police, she says no.

So. If someone asks her if they should call the police if in danger. She would say NO.

A silly thing to say.

She is not there now....wonder why?

"A left-wing California college professor who defended cancel culture and repeatedly talked down to a student who called police "heroes" has herself been canceled after video of the virtual class went viral."

One is ignoring science/facts and putting foward ways/rules that endanger other peoples lifes, the other is someones own nonsense.

 

[dowie]

It's a private school.
Nothing anyone can do.

No different from the woke professor at Cypress College CA
If she was getting raped she would call a person to talk to them!

That's pretty horrendous, she's perpetuating the myth that modern policing comes from slavery patrols (something she's picked up from some woke Twitter people no doubt) then she interrupts that guy a bunch of times and comes out with some completely erroneous claim that her life would be in more danger if she called the police because of some armed attacker at her home!

 

[Freddie1980]

I appreciate that a jury does not have to give reasons and a judge cannot direct a jury to convict, however the direction of the judge was clear - if they committed the act they must be guilty.

It appears the jury has gone off on a frolic of its own and behaved as activists first and jurors second. This is not a case where this jury can be seen as providing a valuable safeguard against unfair and unjust laws or prosecutions.

This jury has significantly undermined confidence in trial by jury IMO. The victim in this case has also been let down by the jury.

Let's be honest here this an obvious example of white middle class privilege. I never thought I would use those words but after reading the story and taking time to think about it I can't come up with any other explanation.

 

[Jean-F]

Let's be honest here this an obvious example of white middle class privilege. I never thought I would use those words but after reading the story and taking time to think about it I can't come up with any other explanation.

Forgive me Freddie, it’s a tad early for me, and I’ve only just put a pot of coffee on, but, and here you can colour me dumb if you wish, I genuinely don’t know which side in this you feel is gaining something through their alleged “white middle class privilege.”
Maybe I’m being simplistic, as there are more than a few facets to this case, but are you saying that the defendants are gaining something through their privilege, or do you mean the jury, or perhaps the judge?
There again, perhaps my misgivings stem from not doing what you did, reading the story and taking the time to think about it.
Without coming down on one side or the other, I’ve only taken a snapshot of the case in black and white.
Some well intentioned people, (in their eyes), defaced a building to further their eco cause, were arrested, charged and appeared before a court.
The judge in the case tells the jury that the defendants have no defence in law, but the jury decide otherwise, and don’t find the defendants guilty, (I did say that I may be simplistic.)
Who’s exercising any white middle class privilege?

 

[deuse]

One is ignoring science/facts and putting foward ways/rules that endanger other peoples lifes, the other is someones own nonsense.

Please tell me the science\facts behind a lady that is about to be shot or raped or even both.
And won't call the police. But would call someone to talk to the rapist.

And you do know that if anyone threatens anyone with a weapon. The police are auto involved.

 

[Mr Jack]

This jury has significantly undermined confidence in trial by jury IMO.

On the contrary, the Jury have done exactly what Trial by Jury is supposed to do. The whole point of Jury Trials is to moderate the legal system with the judgement of the people; if you don't want that, you don't want Jury trials. Just have cases tried by a panel of judges as happens across most of the continent.

The victim in this case has also been let down by the jury.

No, they've been let down by the system. The Jury did their job.

 

[Dolph]

On the contrary, the Jury have done exactly what Trial by Jury is supposed to do. The whole point of Jury Trials is to moderate the legal system with the judgement of the people; if you don't want that, you don't want Jury trials. Just have cases tried by a panel of judges as happens across most of the continent.



No, they've been let down by the system. The Jury did their job.

The jury have made the case for proscribing extinction rebellion, I'm not sure that was their intent.