Tearing down statues

[dirtychinchilla]

Do you think I'd care if it was removed by democratic means and not by an angry mob? Nope, I wouldn't.

The idea that angry mobs can cause damage like this, and then be covered by an interpretation of the law, doesn't sit well with me.

Look at the people who did this and tell me you see human rights campaigners, virtuous people standing up for the oppressed. Heh. It was a bunch of students and rabble-raisers.

People who think their morality is the one true way, and are prepared to use violent conduct to get achieve their aims.

I can quite easily flip your argument and say that it boggles my mind, that people think vocal minorities should have the power to enforce their ideals and morality upon society through violence.

They weren't covered by an interpretation of the law. They were acquitted by a jury of their peers.

 

[mattyfez]

Do you think I'd care if it was removed by democratic means and not by an angry mob? Nope, I wouldn't.

The idea that angry mobs can cause damage like this, and then be covered by an interpretation of the law, doesn't sit well with me.

Look at the people who did this and tell me you see human rights campaigners, virtuous people standing up for the oppressed. Heh. It was a bunch of students and rabble-raisers.

People who think their morality is the one true way, and are prepared to use violent conduct to get achieve their aims.



I can quite easily flip your argument and say that it boggles my mind, that people think vocal minorities should have the power to enforce their ideals and morality upon society through violence.

That's the whole point of trail by jury - it's risky (to both parties) but ultimatly allows progression of law as jury members are random.

 

[FoxEye]

They weren't covered by an interpretation of the law. They were acquitted by a jury of their peers.

Some here believe they may have been acquitted lawfully by an interpretation of the law. It hardly matters (since the jury are not beholden to the law, it transpires).

They achieved their aims through violence and there is no evidence to suggest their view is the majority view.

Is this what we want? Other posters like hurf have said violence is legit against "the fascists", which basically means anyone that doesn't share his views.

Is that what we're coming to?

 

[mattyfez]

Kind of messed up, if they were found not guilty because they found the statue offensive

I'm sure there's people who could find Churches as equally offensive as statues due to historic terrible things the church has done, so does this mean they can burn churches down now ?

I don't think any jury would find a defendant 'not guilty' if they burned a church down. It is within the jurys power to find them not guilty though.

 

[Zatoichi.uK]

So what are the requirements now for me to destroy something in the public domain without worrying about legal prosecution?

 

[FoxEye]

So what are the requirements now for me to destroy something in the public domain without worrying about legal prosecution?

A sympathetic jury.

All other considerations void.

 

[Deleted User 298457]

So what are the requirements now for me to destroy something in the public domain without worrying about legal prosecution?

If someone has spray painted a swastika on the gate of your local park, you can emulsion over it if you want.

 

[McGray]

The argument in court was it wasn't criminal damage as now the statue is actually worth more.

They had valued and everything.

 

[Jean-F]

That is because juries represent the collective sense of justice of the community.

If the jurors only job was to implement the law, why would they even be there? You are aware magistrates are also volunteers, right? There to represent the justice the community would ask for?

Thanks for that, now I see where I and my fellow jurors went wrong on the case before us some 18-20 years back.
The defendant was a homeless person accused of stealing with menaces, he was alleged to have gone into a world famous bookshop in Piccadilly, London and stolen a number of books.
On being challenged by a security guard he’d produced a hypodermic needle and declared that he had AIDS and would jab the guard if he wasn’t allowed to leave.
The security guard appeared as a prosecution witness, plus a shop worker and a customer who was in the shop at the time.
When we retired to the jury room, one housewife put forward the theory that “the poor man had been starving”, and he’d had little option other than to steal for money for food.
The majority discussed it reasonably and decided that hungry or not, the guy was guilty of stealing and he’d menaced the guard with the hypodermic needle, verdict guilty as charged.
Aside from the discomfited housewife, no one decided that even though he was patently guilty, we’d find him not guilty as he said that he’d been hungry.

 

[Blackjack Davy]

So what are the requirements now for me to destroy something in the public domain without worrying about legal prosecution?

If you're a BLM protester, pretty much anything it looks like, knock yourself out.

Funnily enough all the defendents I saw were white.

 

[mattyfez]

Thanks for that, now I see where I and my fellow jurors went wrong on the case before us some 18-20 years back.
The defendant was a homeless person accused of stealing with menaces, he was alleged to have gone into a world famous bookshop in Piccadilly, London and stolen a number of books.
On being challenged by a security guard he’d produced a hypodermic needle and declared that he had AIDS and would jab the guard if he wasn’t allowed to leave.
The security guard appeared as a prosecution witness, plus a shop worker and a customer who was in the shop at the time.
When we retired to the jury room, one housewife put forward the theory that “the poor man had been starving”, and he’d had little option other than to steal for money for food.
The majority discussed it reasonably and decided that hungry or not, the guy was guilty of stealing and he’d menaced the guard with the hypodermic needle, verdict guilty as charged.
Aside from the discomfited housewife, no one decided that even though he was patently guilty, we’d find him not guilty as he said that he’d been hungry.

Again, each case on its own merit, theiving some books and then saying 'sorry I was hungry' when caught is one thing, but the additional threat to life via the syringe, tipped the balance in the jurys collective mind to give, I would say, a correct guilty verdict.

Thats why we have jurys.

 

[Deleted User 298457]

Thanks for that, now I see where I and my fellow jurors went wrong on the case before us some 18-20 years back.
The defendant was a homeless person accused of stealing with menaces, he was alleged to have gone into a world famous bookshop in Piccadilly, London and stolen a number of books.
On being challenged by a security guard he’d produced a hypodermic needle and declared that he had AIDS and would jab the guard if he wasn’t allowed to leave.
The security guard appeared as a prosecution witness, plus a shop worker and a customer who was in the shop at the time.
When we retired to the jury room, one housewife put forward the theory that “the poor man had been starving”, and he’d had little option other than to steal for money for food.
The majority discussed it reasonably and decided that hungry or not, the guy was guilty of stealing and he’d menaced the guard with the hypodermic needle, verdict guilty as charged.
Aside from the discomfited housewife, no one decided that even though he was patently guilty, we’d find him not guilty as he said that he’d been hungry.

I wouldn't say you were wrong in this case.

Now say he didn't do any of the above stabby stabby, and just stole a bread roll. I'd say housewife may have a more compelling argument.

Edit: beaten

 

[jpaul]

The argument in court was it wasn't criminal damage as now the statue is actually worth more.

and the Bristol rates payer costs associated with recovery, and policing - hope they'll reflect on that

they could still have pronounced guilty with extenuating circumstances - I suppose bookies are not allowed to have odds on prosecution appeal , trial outcomes.

 

[FoxEye]

I wouldn't say you were wrong in this case.

Now say he didn't do any of the above stabby stabby, and just stole a bread roll. I'd say housewife may have a more compelling argument.

Edit: beaten

Was he starving? Did he instead want to sell the books to buy meth?

Was there a homeless shelter he could have gone to were he not a dangerous meth addict with a history of violence to the other patrons?

 

[Pudney]

They weren't covered by an interpretation of the law. They were acquitted by a jury of their peers.

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[McGray]

and the Bristol rates payer costs associated with recovery, and policing - hope they'll reflect on that

Well the Police stood by and let them do it so I can't imagine there was much cost involved there!

 

[Deleted User 298457]

Was he starving? Did he instead want to sell the books to buy meth?

Was there a homeless shelter he could have gone to were he not a dangerous meth addict with a history of violence to the other patrons?

Ah the famous - I won't give homeless people money because they'll spend it on drugs and drink.........


......coincidentally exactly what I plan on spending it on

 

[FoxEye]

Well the Police stood by and let them do it so I can't imagine there was much cost involved there!

They were just there in the the hope that one of the BLM scrotes would ask them to pose for a selfie with them.

Police left hugely disappointed not to have been part of this successful BLM protest. Will make sure they get proper invites, next time.

 

[FoxEye]

Ah the famous - I won't give homeless people money because they'll spend it on drugs and drink.........


......coincidentally exactly what I plan on spending it on

Sadly, those who don't use the homeless shelters usually do have a history of drugs and violence. It's just a fact of life, I'm afraid.

There isn't too much need for homelessness in modern Britain, and you'll find a lot of people actually living rough have mental health issues, drug problems, etc.

Enjoy your crack?

 

[Caracus2k]

Why do you ignore what you don't like? The defences were:

• The defendants were preventing the commission of another crime (this is one of the defences to criminal damage) either:
  • Because the statue constituted a visible threatening or abusive display that was causing harassment, alarm or distress, or
  • Because the statue constituted an indecent display (I don't get how this could apply but I don't have more detail).
• Convicting the defendants would disproportionately infringe their rights under the Human Rights Act.

I think the most likely argument is the first one as the statue was clearly distressing the protestors. Interesting argument really.

To note, I think they should have been found guilty based on the limited information I have, but I can see the route to not guilty.

Do you get paid to post such mind bending drooling nonsense?

A statute of a man on a plinth in and of itself isn't any sort of crime in the UK.

You cant just go around commiting crimes because in animate objects offend your pathetic sensibilities.


Stop reading garbage blogs and cite some actual legal authority as to how any of what you have just typed isn't total risible idiocy.