Climate Change Robs Family Of Life...
ChatterBank1 min ago
Colston Vandals Cleared
the judge just greenlighted it's ok to vandalise, if you don't like a statue or painting just knock it down or rip it up, history is there to be trodden on if it offends you...
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by fender62. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
jno - // andy, can you please stop calling people you disagree with "nazis".
From the Merriam-Webster dictionary -
definition of Nazi
1 : a member of a German fascist party controlling Germany from 1933 to 1945 under Adolf Hitler
2 often not capitalized a : one who espouses the beliefs and policies of the German Nazis : fascist
b : one who is likened to a German Nazi : a harshly domineering, dictatorial, or intolerant person
I draw your attention to the definition at 2B, so in answer to your request, No.
From the Merriam-Webster dictionary -
definition of Nazi
1 : a member of a German fascist party controlling Germany from 1933 to 1945 under Adolf Hitler
2 often not capitalized a : one who espouses the beliefs and policies of the German Nazis : fascist
b : one who is likened to a German Nazi : a harshly domineering, dictatorial, or intolerant person
I draw your attention to the definition at 2B, so in answer to your request, No.
// Jim at 13.17 feels there may be a possibility that the judge made an error in law in directing the jury. If that’s so, firstly how did the judge direct the jury - does anyone know? //
To be clear, I don't think that the Judge misdirected the jury. I don't know. I'm not an expert in criminal law and the only information I have is through the media and through the blog post I linked. What I meant was that the only appealable part is in the directions the Judge gave to the Jury. The jury themselves cannot have been "wrong", in the sense that their decision is absolute, needs no justification, and that they cannot be held to account for a decision that may seem on the face of it bizarre. I was surprised myself -- I had thought it was an open-and-shut case. But I didn't listen to the evidence, or the defence, or the prosecution's full case, and I wasn't given any legal directions about the questions at issue.
Some of what the Judge directed the Jury can be found in the link I gave, eg see Sections 4 and 5. But having not heard the full summary I wouldn't care to comment further myself. I'd encourage everybody to read that link.
To be clear, I don't think that the Judge misdirected the jury. I don't know. I'm not an expert in criminal law and the only information I have is through the media and through the blog post I linked. What I meant was that the only appealable part is in the directions the Judge gave to the Jury. The jury themselves cannot have been "wrong", in the sense that their decision is absolute, needs no justification, and that they cannot be held to account for a decision that may seem on the face of it bizarre. I was surprised myself -- I had thought it was an open-and-shut case. But I didn't listen to the evidence, or the defence, or the prosecution's full case, and I wasn't given any legal directions about the questions at issue.
Some of what the Judge directed the Jury can be found in the link I gave, eg see Sections 4 and 5. But having not heard the full summary I wouldn't care to comment further myself. I'd encourage everybody to read that link.
//I saw them do it - and if you watched the news, Corby, so did you//
We all saw George Floyd die under Derek Chauvin's knee, but many on AB wanted Chauvin acquitted.
For what it's worth, I think the decision was wrong and the vandals should have been found guilty, but sometimes in a court of law, things don't go the way they're expected. It doesn't necessarily mean the trial was rigged, or the jury corrupt.
We all saw George Floyd die under Derek Chauvin's knee, but many on AB wanted Chauvin acquitted.
For what it's worth, I think the decision was wrong and the vandals should have been found guilty, but sometimes in a court of law, things don't go the way they're expected. It doesn't necessarily mean the trial was rigged, or the jury corrupt.
//See my post at 17.05.//
But you said it stinks but havent said why it stinks. If the jury got it wrong thats a reflection on the jury system (no guarantee there reasonable logical or intelligent ) people. Does the jury system stink in general...or are you saying there was some foul play, some pressure or inteferance?
But you said it stinks but havent said why it stinks. If the jury got it wrong thats a reflection on the jury system (no guarantee there reasonable logical or intelligent ) people. Does the jury system stink in general...or are you saying there was some foul play, some pressure or inteferance?
"ich, yes but the point is how can they not be guilty of criminal damage? They admitted doing it, there is extensive video of them doing it. Is there a legal exemption that we don't know about? "
Hi Tora
I listened to a senior lawyer on the radio the other day explaining the arguments and the possible legal get-outs used by the defence and applied by presumably a majority of the jury.
I can't remember the ins and outs of it and he didn't sound entirely happy about it himself, but the key thing here is not whether they did it or not but whether there was a justification on legal grounds.
I agree that a lot of the post-verdict comments of the defendants are not going to convince anyone who thinks justice was not done!
Hi Tora
I listened to a senior lawyer on the radio the other day explaining the arguments and the possible legal get-outs used by the defence and applied by presumably a majority of the jury.
I can't remember the ins and outs of it and he didn't sound entirely happy about it himself, but the key thing here is not whether they did it or not but whether there was a justification on legal grounds.
I agree that a lot of the post-verdict comments of the defendants are not going to convince anyone who thinks justice was not done!
I feel conflicted on this.
I don't like the idea of violently tearing down statues in theory, but then in practice I'm thinking, as previously mentioned, if Felix Dzerzhinsky, for example, in Moscow (and elsewhere) and I was quite happy about that.
So where do you draw the line. Ultimately, its the same thing,
I don't like the idea of violently tearing down statues in theory, but then in practice I'm thinking, as previously mentioned, if Felix Dzerzhinsky, for example, in Moscow (and elsewhere) and I was quite happy about that.
So where do you draw the line. Ultimately, its the same thing,
18:42. Then I'm not sure what you now want to happen? These people were tried in a court of law. Because the decision wasn't what you wanted, you do not think that was enough? If, in your eyes, they were guilty before the trial began (which I do find understandable, given the evidence) what was the point of a trial?
NAOMI, if the case were based solely upon what had been seen, would the trial not have been a much shorter affair?
Reading JIM's link, it is clear there were points in dispute including whether the statue had been “temporarily or permanently physically harmed” and whether their action been carried out without lawful excuse.
It may appear to be a straightforward case but that is based upon only what has been shown on tv or social media and not what happened during the actual trial.
Reading JIM's link, it is clear there were points in dispute including whether the statue had been “temporarily or permanently physically harmed” and whether their action been carried out without lawful excuse.
It may appear to be a straightforward case but that is based upon only what has been shown on tv or social media and not what happened during the actual trial.
There's no denying that they damaged the statue. But damage and criminal damage aren't the same thing. The fourth part of proving criminal damage is to prove that there was "no lawful excuse" for causing the damage, and it's clearly an important distinction. The mere fact that (a) you owned something, (b) I damaged it, and (c) I did so deliberately, isn't enough to make the damage a criminal offence. EG one defence open is to argue that the owner would have consented to the damage(Criminal Damage Act 1971, 5(2)(a)), perhaps because the property was scheduled for destruction anyway or wasn't important to them.
I re-emphasise that I'm surprised by the verdict, but it's the job of the Jury to listen to all the evidence, rather than merely arrive already having made their decision.
I re-emphasise that I'm surprised by the verdict, but it's the job of the Jury to listen to all the evidence, rather than merely arrive already having made their decision.
Latest Posts
Body & Soul3 mins ago
ChatterBank4 mins ago
The Prince Of Darkness To Be U S...
News15 mins ago
Crosswords26 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.