Extinction Rebellion: Jury acquits protesters despite judge's direction

Hagar said:
So you are also on the side of the crowd in the tube station dragging the ER activist from the train roof and mildly duffing him up. Anarchy rules etc.:)
Click to expand...
No - one is violence against the person and one is damage to property - not even on the same page re. severity.
 
MikeTimbers said:
good for the jury.

As a former juror who along with the 11 others ruled according to the law in a case, believing that the penalty would be a slap on the wrist at most, and then found that the defendant was a week away from discharging a totally unrelated suspended sentence, sending him to jail for two years, I applaud a jury that rules on morals not laws. I wish I had.

And for those who think that the ER demonstrators should be beaten up, I'm shocked at how self-centered you are. Shocked but not surprised. Humans are like wasps; as a species it is selfish, self-centered, inconsiderate, short-sighted, and unnecessary. Thanos should have made a special exception for humans and annihilated all of them.
Click to expand...
Persuaded peaceably to get off the ******* train and let people earn a living.

At that time of the morning you wouldn't want to get in the way of a commuter and his space on the tube. Anyway public transport is essential whereas cars in the city aren't so there is no ethical argument for blocking it.
 
Dolph said:
Utterly ridiculous and makes a mockery of the law.

Subjective Perceived validity of motivation is not and should not be a defence in law, and these protestors should have been convicted.
Click to expand...

Sometimes the law needs to be mocked.
 
amigafan2003 said:
No - one is violence against the person and one is damage to property - not even on the same page re. severity.
Click to expand...
Blocking roads leads to blocking emergency services, ambulances , police etc. That is violence against the person if not specific so your argument is horse manure.
 
deuse said:

YES.

I am so glad that the new law in FL allows the ambulance to plough threw the protesters now :)
Click to expand...
What was this trying to prove? Both vehicles made it through no problem :confused: have you ever been to the City? It's a nightmare to get through at the best of times. Ambulance almost looked like a paid shill when he failed to notice the obvious route available. Lucky a sensible officer was able to point out the obvious.

At least use the Tower Bridge version that is slightly more antagonistic.
 
dLockers said:
What was this trying to prove? Both vehicles made it through no problem :confused: have you ever been to the City? It's a nightmare to get through at the best of times. Ambulance almost looked like a paid shill when he failed to notice the obvious route available. Lucky a sensible officer was able to point out the obvious.

At least use the Tower Bridge version that is slightly more antagonistic.
Click to expand...


They lost critical time.

And that's not only 1 if you do your home work before posting.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10084096/extinction-rebellion-london-furious-oap-with-broken-foot/

Blocking a OAP going to the hospital
 
deuse said:
No.
I'm old and disabled. What's your excuse :cry::cry::cry:

https://www.facebook.com/TomHarwood...on-rebellion-block-ambulance/342538683766170/

So can we now go to there office and break there windows?
Click to expand...
Ah fella honestly it's much easier to have a conversation without perpetual stealth edits. What's you being old and disabled got to do with anything? I'm agreeing with you that unplanned protests are bad as appropriate rerouting can't happen, but all the examples you've lifted have hardly proved the point.
 
dLockers said:
Ah fella honestly it's much easier to have a conversation without perpetual stealth edits. What's you being old and disabled got to do with anything? I'm agreeing with you that unplanned protests are bad as appropriate rerouting can't happen, but all the examples you've lifted have hardly proved the point.
Click to expand...


you said "Edit: ah stealth edit, the excitement of posting came over you too greatly?"
I was just telling why.
Not a very nice person to have a go at disabled people. What are you 10 yoa.

If you would do your home work on the subject instead of being spoon fed it would be better.

I will leave it at that as I don't want to chat with a nasty person.
 
deuse said:
you said "Edit: ah stealth edit, the excitement of posting came over you too greatly?"
I was just telling why.
Not a very nice person to have a go at disabled people. What are you 10 yoa.

If you would do your home work on the subject instead of being spoon fed it would be better.

I will leave it at that as I don't want to chat with a nasty person.
Click to expand...
:cry: I wasn't even having a go, you've clearly just being playing the victim so long you can't differentiate. Did you just ask me to 'do my research'? :cry:

Crikey, stay over the pond with the yanks fella. You sound like you fit right in.
 
amigafan2003 said:
Sometimes the law needs to be mocked.
Click to expand...

Do you believe this behaviour by the jury is valid in all scenarios, including ones that go against your own beliefs, or are you an inconsistent hypocrite?

Would you accept, for example, a jury arbitrarily deciding that an acknowledged action of racism or sexual assault should result in aquittal if the jury believes in rape myths or white supremacy?
 
Dolph said:
Do you believe this behaviour by the jury is valid in all scenarios, including ones that go against your own beliefs, or are you an inconsistent hypocrite?

Would you accept, for example, a jury arbitrarily deciding that an acknowledged action of racism or sexual assault should result in aquittal if the jury believes in rape myths or white supremacy?
Click to expand...
Are you arguing against the system, or the specific outcome in this case? If the latter, then the problem is you.
 
Dolph said:
Do you believe this behaviour by the jury is valid in all scenarios, including ones that go against your own beliefs, or are you an inconsistent hypocrite?

Would you accept, for example, a jury arbitrarily deciding that an acknowledged action of racism or sexual assault should result in aquittal if the jury believes in rape myths or white supremacy?
Click to expand...
Its not whether I agree with it or not, it's if the jury represents a significant element of the general public. I don't think a significant element of the general public believe in rape myths or white suprememacy.

But then again, I know we think the law is there to protect different people. You belive it should be there to protect the individual, I believe it should be there to protect society.
 
amigafan2003 said:
Its not whether I agree with it or not, it's if the jury represents a significant element of the general public. I don't think a significant element of the general public believe in rape myths or white suprememacy.

But then again, I know we think the law is there to protect different people. You belive it should be there to protect the individual, I believe it should be there to protect society.
Click to expand...

Not quite true, the law is there to protect both individuals and society, the issue here is that our opinion on whether the actions of extinction rebellion are beneficial to individuals and society and should be encouraged, or whether they are detrimental to individuals and society and should be discouraged, a decision which should be based solely on their actions, not their motivations.
 
Dolph said:
a decision which should be based solely on their actions, not their motivations.
Click to expand...

Well I disagree and so it seems did the jury.

Trial by jury is there to allow for the consideration of motivation - that's why we are tried by our peers.

Simple cases or legal/illegal are typically magistrate led (although there is still some allowance for motivation, i.e. speeding etc).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom