Deleted User 298457
Deleted User 298457
My example makes clear I was not in any danger myself. How could self-defence be applied?
Tearing down statues
- Thread starter siezar
- Start date
Hang on, are you so void of life that this is a new concept for you? Or did you not understand some of the basic ideas behind trial by jury in the first place?
Are there many other statues that claim to not be owned by anyone by the council that are being asked to be taken down by its local residents for 10+ years that you are concerned about?
IANAL, but I believe the laws on self-defence allow you to take measures to protect others, and have done for a long time.My example makes clear I was not in any danger myself. How could self-defence be applied?
Were it proved that your intent was to kill him, you might be guilty of murder, because that might be seen as disproportionate use of force (like shooting someone in the back as they attempted to flee).
Were you able to prove that you were only trying to nullify the threat he posed and not to kill him, you would probably be covered by existing laws.
Again, the jury are basically being asked to apply the law, not to use their moral discretion to bend or break the law based on whether they think you are a good person or not.
If you think the purpose of the jury is not to apply the law, then why have the law?
At every trial they shouldn't even brief the jury on the details of the law (as they do), and instead ask if the actions of the alleged perp were justifiable or not, based on their moral code.
Why bother with law in that case? Just hinge everything on the morality of jury of your peers...
I'd never heard of him before. I hadn't heard much of Britains role in slavery either until I purposely went looking in to it. So if I had seen the statue and it had a plaque on it I'd have read it.
I'm glad it went in to a museum. That would have been my secondary choice.
I think we as a country need to learn more about our history, both the good and the bad. There are far too many people feeling detached from society. We need to learn about the past to understand our role of where we fit in today.
Listen man, I'd love to reply, but the idea that our best history lessons are derived from statutes has just made me laugh too much to cope. Thank god we have all of those Hitler statues...................
Maybe there needs to be some Hitler statues in Europe, considering how right wing they are becoming.
Deleted User 298457
Deleted User 298457
Bazinga. And what a great system it is!
I'm concerned with the principle, not the statue, or other statues.
Again, as I asked @dLockers, why even brief the jury on the law if they are not being asked to apply the law. You might as well sit them down and say, "Does this sit well with you? Do you think they did a good thing or a bad thing?"
So rather than being found "guilty" or innocent of committing a crime (this is the verdict a jury returns) they should instead return "we are OK with this" or "we think he's a bad person and we're NOT OK with this".
Pray tell, what verdicts does a jury return? Is it not "guilty of committing said crime" or "not guilty of committing said crime"...
What is the implication there?
Deleted User 298457
Deleted User 298457
It is the judges job to provide options to the jurors.
In this case, criminal damage was an option presented. It was deemed "non criminal" by the jurors because the statue represented abhorrent crimes against humanity.
Perhaps the legal boffins should retire to their chamber and come up with a morally justifiable form of criminal damage with appropriate sentencing. But if it is clearly morally justifiable then I'm unsure whether that passes the "in the publics interest" category.
This dude enslaved 80,000 people and was responsible for 10's of thousands of deaths. It was a crime the statue was allowed to stand anywhere other than a museum. In fact there was protests dating back to the 20's to remove it.
No so long ago, you would be jailed for homosexuality. A law like that might struggle now, as you have the release valve of a jury who will broadly think it abhorrent to jail someone for their sexuality.
Now, it's pretty unlikely we would see a return of such a law, but is it so hard to comprehend that the law may not be sufficient to allow for the complexities of morality, and such rare cases where the jury plugs that gap are, in fact, desirable?
Quite. People seem to think this is a recent thing. Though I'm amazed at @BowdonUK 's lack of knowledge of Britain's role in the slave trade. I was certainly taught it at school.
There have been debates around Colston in Bristol for decades. My mother attended the Colston Girls School and has been vocal about it for quite some time.
It does not appear that the majority, when asked, supported the removal of the statue.
Please explain how it is "clearly morally justifiable" based on the wishes of a minority? Or "in the public interest"?
The jury system isn't really meant to work on the basis of jurors making moral judgements.
It works best when they assess the facts and case argued before them and make a judgement on that.
It can work in this way, and in some circumstances it can lead to agreeable outcomes (easily argued this Colston one is a good outcome), but have to remember that giving a jury free reign to decide the law can also be a dangerous thing. Imagine an open and shut murder case against a minority being jurored by people prejudicial against that minority.
Deleted User 298457
Deleted User 298457
Yet an intersection of society chosen at random made a decision that it was OK.
Stop taking the red pill and expand your mind my man, it'll get you to 50k in no time.
I agree - but it is typically a progressive thing rather than a regressive thing.
But we all want progression at varying speeds don't we
Taken in the current societal context I'm not so sure.
We have people losing their jobs based on the ramblings of woke campaign groups on Twitter. People are often terrified of not towing this new line.
The (genuine) difficulty, and where I will admit I cannot be 100% sure, is in knowing how much this is the will of the people, and how much it is the will of a vocal minority, which the people acquiesce to for fear of harassment and the like.
If I'm a dinosaur and the new will of the people in 2022 is to adhere to all this woke nonsense, then I am indeed out of touch. But if this is not actually the will of the people, but rather a highly successful fringe group/opinion, then this kind of verdict represents a triumph of social engineering over justice.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2018
- Posts
- 13,316
I had just logged on to say that. What a silly comment to make.
Listen man, I'd love to reply, but the idea that our best history lessons are derived from statutes has just made me laugh too much to cope. Thank god we have all of those Hitler statues...................
What do you mean we? Do you mean the people that defend statues like Colston or the ones that want them takn down because they no what they represent. If I have learned one thing about the british public is that those that constantly get offended by people complaining about racism is they havent bothered to read or understand our history. Those are the people that need to learn about our history not the ones that already know the history. And even after they know the reason they still defend it.
I am constantly bemused by what you post here.Maybe there needs to be some Hitler statues in Europe, considering how right wing they are becoming.
He is talking nonsense of course he knows about it or he just wasnt interested in it because he didnt care.
So, this "fringe group" has managed to infiltrate the Jury, harassed them and made them fearful which led to the ruling which is the opposite of what they would have ruled upon had this clandestine operation from this "fringe group" not had happened.
My goodness, you're far down the rabbit hole there!
This kind of societal pressure is much more insidious than the simplistic "infiltration" scenario. People react subconsciously to stories on Twitter, FB, etc.
Would you say that no juror has ever been afraid to return the "wrong" verdict, based on their assessment of the consequences of their vote being made public?
Given that we already know an angry mob was involved?
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2018
- Posts
- 13,316
You do know that the head of the National Trust got death threats by right wingers right?
I would rather take losing my job because I said something racist or just pure nasty bile about people or groups of people than getting death threats for not being a racist or not saying nasty things about people.
Actually no if I was a racist ******* I would be really offended by people losing their jobs for being nasty *****.
I don't have to be in favour of right-wing groups issuing death threats, either. It's not a binary choice
Can't I just say they're both awful?
e: I have not heard the NT story so I'm not actually agreeing with your take, here. But if it is as you describe, then I'm not going to side with those people either.