Colston Vandals Cleared

[fender62]

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://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10371949/BLM-protestors-not-guilty-criminal-damage-toppling-Edward-Colston-statue-Bristol.html

[naomi24]

We saw them do it. How are they not guilty?

If they start tearing down all the institutions, schools, hospitals, etc., founded on the spoils of Colston’s activities, will that be acceptable to you too?

[bobbinwales]

//We saw them do it. How are they not guilty?//
They never denied they done it.
They argued successfully that there actions was justified, for example because they had the backing of the local population, and that it din't count as criminal damage as jim360 explained

[Mozz71]

Nobody has said that their actions were acceptable, just that all trials must be undertaken fairly and verdicts adhered to. If a verdict is overturned because the decision isn't what was expected, then it makes a farce.of the whole legal system. I ask again, what would you have happen?

[jim360]

Like I said, they may have damaged the statue but it may not have been a criminal offence. It's am important distinction, and one the Jury were directed to understand in accordance with the law. It's clear why the defence of, in essence, "justifiable" damage to property should exist.

As to the slippery slope, I have no intention of going there beyond noting the obvious degree of difference between damaging a statue and a school.

[bhg481]

Naomi - Yes. |If the residents of Bristol are ashamed of Colston they should tear down all the buildings he donated to the town and rebuild them at the expense of the rate-payers. That would prove that they are truly ashamed of him and do not wish to accept his charity.

[jim360]

// They argued successfully that there actions was justified, for example because they had the backing of the local population //

This is not (necessarily) true. All that matters is that the prosecution were unable to argue successfully that their actions were unjustified. Which of the many reasons offered in their defence, if any, that were accepted, we will likely never know.

[dave50]

Why are these people almost always all white agitators?

[naomi24]

I know. I don’t agree that blatant destruction is ever justified. I thought this was shameful.

[fender62]

the black lives matter hysteria that swept through america after floyd
had nothing to do with britain, all the pro blm supporters never mention the arson destruction murder and theft that was left during it's wake, ill say it again..nothing to do with britain.

[naomi24]

Exactly bhg.

[MONEILL45]

Heroes let them loose on the Downing street flat.

[Atheist]

I think that many here didn't read Jim360's link, or were too thick or set in their ways to give it a hearing. Has anyone made any intelligent response to the points made by the lawyer?

[Atheist]

Naomi; do you condemn the sufragettes?

[bobbinwales]

jim, your brighter than me but Im not sure I see the difference between what I said
//They argued successfully that there actions was justified// and what you say
//All that matters is that the prosecution were unable to argue successfully that their actions were unjustified.//
Presumably the prosecution claimed there actions werent justified and the defence argued they were, and the jury disagreed with the prosecution or agreed with the defence.

Unless your saying the jury were'nt convinced by either side so had to give the benifit of the doubt to the ones being charged

[ynnafymmi]

Aye,or up here in Bute House up here in Scotland,MO.The nationalist sc*m up here in Scotland make the nationalist sc*m down in England look like freedom loving libertarians.

[ynnafymmi]

^19.08.

[jim360]

It's partly motivated by the standard "innocent until proven guilty" position that a Jury should always start with. The first consequence of this is that the Defence has to prove nothing -- and, indeed, need not offer a defence at all. The second is that, therefore, the Defendant can offer a defence that is entirely rejected, and that still isn't enough to establish guilt. As a result, it's not true (although it's common for acquitted people to claim otherwise) to say that the Jury accepted such-and-such a part of the Defence's argument. If the prosecution hasn't established enough evidence to be sure, beyond reasonable doubt, of guilt, then the Jury should acquit.

The other possibility, that I suggested earlier, is that the Jury agreed that the four were guilty of criminal damage, but decided to acquit anyway. This is their right, in part because jurors don't have to explain their verdicts anyway, and in part because it affords protections from the Law being an ass. This is often known as Jury Nullification, and has sometimes been useful to protect obvious miscarriages of justice (or, sadly, to perpetuate them); but, in either case, exists because the Jury has to be free to make its decision without fear of punishment. There'd be no point in having a trial by Jury at all if there were some objective standard by which to judge the correctness of their verdict.

[New Judge]

//jim, your brighter than me but Im not sure I see the difference between what I said//

There isn’t – much. The issue in the case was whether the defendants had a “lawful excuse”. I think it was common ground that the statue was damaged by the defendants. The defendants obviously made the basis of their defence known to the judge before the trial. The police proved the damage had been committed by the defendants; the judge believed there was a case to answer (otherwise the trial would have ended with an acquittal after the prosecution case had finished) and so the defendants provided details of their “lawful excuse”. There was also a defence angle based on Human Rights – in this case to protest and a recent ruling by the Supreme Court concerning the “Extinction Rebellion” protests was cited. The jury was directed to decide on those issues and they did. We don’t know whether they decided in favour of the defendants of both grounds or one or the other.

[Ellipsis]

This was a micro-revolution. Nobody was overthrown, nobody was killed. But an issue that was burning for years, that those in power continually chose to do nothing about, was finally dealt with by the people. And a jury of their peers found them justified in doing so.

This is a real demonstration of the power of the jury system.

[New Judge]

//The first consequence of this is that the Defence has to prove nothing -- and, indeed, need not offer a defence at all.//

They certainly did in this case. They needed to prove they had a lawful excuse. The prosecution cannot prove they did not; proving a negative is virtually impossible and in any case the list of examples of a "lawful excuse" from both the statute and case law is not exhaustive. Without such a defence they would almost certainly have been convicted because there was ample evidence to show they committed the damage, they did not have the permission of the owner to commit the damage and they caused it either intentionally or recklessly.