Glad people agree upon the principle of trial by jury, though I suspect many of the people celebrating this verdict had a different opinion of the jury in the Rittenhouse trial....
Had those individuals on trial been part of this process personally though? At least then a argument could be made that they had tried all other means. Even then they appear to be bang to rights guilty of criminal damage and I don't belive the circumstances excuse that. A inanimate object depicted something they object to so they tore it down causing damage and recovery that will have cost a considerable sum I imagine.
I agree, maybe the statue shouldnt have been erected in the first place because nobody should condone slavery but it`s the slipery slope when people resort to vandalism to get their voices heard.
What a load of tosh,how is erecting a statue of someone erasing history ,what a world of sound bites we live in
I don't know what the Rittenhouse trial is, although I'm sure curiosity will get the better of me after I've written this and I'll go look it up. I do know what the Stendel trial was. Someone saw Joey Barton push Daniel in the back, which sent him flying in to a gate, which smashed his face in. Not guilty by jury. I wasn't too impressed with that. In fact, after the last two trials by jury I've read about, I'm wondering what you have to do for a jury to actually reach a guilty verdict.
I don't care how noble or popularist the cause is, a crime is a crime. I think it's an appalling verdict and a poor reflection on our justice system.
Probably sit in a courtroom for the whole of the trial, and hear all the evidence examinations and cross examinations and the submissions and the summings up. And after all that, consider the charge proved beyond reasonable doubt.
This ‘ slippery slope’ will get even more slippery when this govt get’s its way with the judicial review bill. When you prevent people from protesting and arrest them for it, then there is only 1 way it can go
Can’t wait till them cranks that we’re gluing themselves to trains and slip roads go to court probably get a written apology and a week at centre parcs!
19000 men women and children died in transit to the New World under his watch, notwithstanding any horrors that befell them if they arrived there alive. Can you explain ‘not illegal’ for me, cos I might be a bit slow, but killing human beings is illegal isn’t it?
I completely agree with the bit in bold, and it's a shame it didn't happen like that in the end. I don't agree with just tearing down anything that displeases, however awful the thing it represents is. I don't think this sets a precedent for people to just tear down anything they don't like without consequence. I think taking into account the wider context and the zeitgeist (oooh look at me using a posh word), in this one specific instance, the court was correct to find them not guilty. I can't think a jury would take the same view if a group just went out tomorrow and chucked a statue of Churchill into the Thames because he held some racist views.
No offence was committed a jury considered the evidence and decided that. Straightforward legal position. Rest is just noise
Imagine we put a statue of Thatcher in the town centre and see how many 'fans of the law' get upset if it were pulled down and tossed down the nearest pit shaft. .
It was a symbolic act. It didn't maim or injure a person. It's metal. History is pulled down and altered all the time. Times change.