| Colston Statue vandals innocent 18:40 - Jan 5 with 20534 views | Flashberryjack |
Colston vandals are CLEARED: Gleeful BLM activists thank Banksy for his support after they are acquitted of criminal damage over toppling of Edward Colston statue - sparking outrage that jury has given a 'greenlight to political vandalism. | |
| |  |
| Colston Statue vandals innocent on 22:24 - Jan 7 with 927 views | Dr_Parnassus |
Not quite.
There were factors behind OJ's acquittal that were very personal to that trial. He did not admit guilt and there was no footage of the crime, it was the jury piecing together what happened.
The fact you are making the comparison suggests you realize some guilty parties have walked free here.
Here we have essentially a political trial where it was filmed and the facts known. Its a slam dunk case. However because they argued they did it for certain reasons the jury clearly also aligned with that way of thinking and acquitted.
Put it this way, its like OJ admitting he did it, they had video he did it - but said ''I did it because I didn't like what she represented politically''. Then the jury acquitting on that basis.
Its a criminal green light. | |
| |
| Colston Statue vandals innocent on 22:32 - Jan 7 with 922 views | Sirjohnalot |
The defences argued were very interesting, but you’re right another jury might’ve convicted. However, like I’ve said before, none of us heard the evidence, none of us heard the legal arguments so nine of us can say whether we’d have convicted or acquitted
No, as the value was over £5,000 the defendants have a choice where it is heard. You’d never run this in the Magistrates, I’d always elect. | | | |
| Colston Statue vandals innocent on 22:36 - Jan 7 with 904 views | Sirjohnalot |
We’ve no idea why the jury acquitted
It is not a criminal green light.
They did not admit criminal damage | | | |
| Colston Statue vandals innocent on 22:36 - Jan 7 with 904 views | Gwyn737 |
I’ve said a number of times on this thread the outcome doesn’t sit well with me.
In hindsight I probably shouldn’t have thrown out the the flippant OJ comparison. It was the rest of the post I really wanted to get across about the hysteria that has accompanied the verdict. | | | |
| Colston Statue vandals innocent on 22:43 - Jan 7 with 894 views | Dr_Parnassus |
I don't think it's hysteria, I think it's a valid conversation.
If this clear case of filmed criminal damage, with testimonies from the defendants that they helped bring it down including bringing the equipment needed and attaching it to the statue ended in a not guilty verdict... then what else can be?
Its the political nature of it that is concerning.
What if next time it isn't a statue and its a person that they don't think what they represent? What if the jury is sympathetic to those actions as they align politically with their own.
Its absolutely a slippery slope. | |
| |
| Colston Statue vandals innocent on 22:50 - Jan 7 with 887 views | Sirjohnalot |
No it’s not in any way a slippery slope. | | | |
| Colston Statue vandals innocent on 22:54 - Jan 7 with 881 views | Gwyn737 |
It’s one off verdict. We won’t be seeing the coliseum being pulled down any time soon. | | | |
| Colston Statue vandals innocent on 22:56 - Jan 7 with 876 views | Dr_Parnassus |
But it is.
If 12 jury can sympathize with a politically motivated crime and acquit due to motive. Then that suggests any random 12 jurors could also potentially look past the law to acquit other similarly political crimes.
As soon as politics gets so partisan that crimes can be acquitted, we need to take a look at that system for crimes that have political links. | |
| |
| Colston Statue vandals innocent on 23:01 - Jan 7 with 872 views | Dr_Parnassus |
But why shouldn't we?
If people have a desire to demolish anything to do with historical slavery, then why shouldn't we demolish it? Far more slaves were taken advantage of in the Colosseum than anything Colston did.
If anyone is of the same mindset as those that have just walked free, then what is stopping them and making the same defence arguments and running the gauntlet on who will be in the jury and with what political beliefs. | |
| |
| Colston Statue vandals innocen on 23:08 - Jan 7 with 857 views | Sirjohnalot |
Again, we do not know why the acquitted. We’ve no idea, there were numerous defences run, not all of them politically motivated. The Crown may not have proven criminal damage. That was one of the defences. Have you read SB’s link. S/he answers all this there.
You cannot create a two tier system for ‘political crimes’ that’s absurd. What next ? Different system for sex offences, v police officers, children, rape ?
We were not in court. We cannot comment on the verdict as we did not hear the evidence. It’s the same as talking about a Swansea game you did not watch, no one has told you about but you only know the score. Did the team that lost dominate , but have 3 goals ruled out and were defeated by two dodgy penalties? No idea, you did it see it.
Same thing here. The judge directs on the law. | | | |
| Colston Statue vandals innocen on 23:14 - Jan 7 with 843 views | Dr_Parnassus |
You shouldn't need a two tier system for political crimes and other crimes, but it's also absurd to have people walk free on political grounds. The latter is far more dangerous than the former.
I don't think sex offenses and offences against children have quite the same partisan sympathy politics does, so let's not take it to the extreme here.
We do know the facts of the case, they are in print. The defence was based around motive, they did not deny partaking in the destruction of that statue and it was taken for granted they did, including providing and attaching the equipment necessary to do it.
IF you did not go to the game but looked at all the evidence of that game, including testimony, video evidence and statistical data, you can have a fair idea what went on. [Post edited 7 Jan 2022 23:17]
| |
| |
| Colston Statue vandals innocen on 23:24 - Jan 7 with 833 views | Sirjohnalot |
But that’s the point. We do not know upon which basis they were acquitted. The facts that as reported rarely reflect what happened. Due to covid most reporters will be on video link. They don’t provide a verbatim report of what is said. Many trials I’ve been in don’t reflect what happened and often reflect the papers political leaning with ‘grabbing’ headlines.
Closing arguments would’ve taken a couple of days, reduced to maybe a paragraph. I’ve not seen any detailed analysis, other than SB’s take.
It’s very difficult to say whether we agree.
One of the defences was around motive, there were many others, the jury may have discounted the political one. That’s my point we simply don’t know and for politicians to be getting involved in a decision made by a jury when they’ve also no idea, is very worrying.
The did deny causing criminal damage. | | | |
| Colston Statue vandals innocent on 23:25 - Jan 7 with 825 views | Dr_Parnassus |
Let's not pretend this is an isolated one off too, there has been a movement for widespread far left criminality to be excused for a long time.
Right back to the criminal riots last year in America with the now Vice President of the country tweeting out support and asking people do donate to a bail fund to get them out.
This is the same BLM movement. There is a pattern of political sympathy that cannot be ignored.
Imagine if the rioters on Capitol Hill were getting pardoned for their crimes due to a sweeping wave of political sympathy for Republican ideals. That would be equally as concerning and no doubt those being happy at this outcome would be outraged at that.
I want ALL criminal violence and vandalism punished, couldn't care less what the motivation was or if they agree with me politically or not. | |
| |
| Colston Statue vandals innocen on 23:29 - Jan 7 with 813 views | Dr_Parnassus |
They denied criminal damage based on the fact they believe their criminal damage caused an increase in value due to the interest the case generated in the statue.
It should be irrelevant.
If I took your suit and cut it up and then said ''It's worth more now, I know someone who may buy that off you for more than you paid'', it makes no difference at all. I still committed criminal damage, you may not be interested in the monetary value and never planned on selling.
That statue was property, designed and made by an artist. Nobody has a right to demolish or deface it, whether it has gone up in value as a result does not affect the crime. | |
| |
| Colston Statue vandals innocen on 23:32 - Jan 7 with 806 views | Sirjohnalot |
Ok. | | | |
| Colston Statue vandals innocen on 23:32 - Jan 7 with 805 views | Dr_Parnassus |
That's correct is it not? | |
| |
| Colston Statue vandals innocent on 00:42 - Jan 8 with 767 views | ItchySphincter |
Everything has a context. As usual it is absent here.
Did they do it? No doubt about it. Do I care that they have been found not guilty? No.
Stick the statue in a museum and forget about it, go about your daily lives. | |
| |
| Colston Statue vandals innocent on 00:44 - Jan 8 with 758 views | Dr_Parnassus |
So what context is needed in your opinion, that you believe is missing, to justify acquittal?
Isn't the context the prime part of the discussion here? Not sure what you think is missing exactly.
You have said yourself you have no doubt they committed the crime *and you responded with ''good'' that they were not punished, not caring is not justification for acquittal, because reverse the politics and you would be in uproar. This is the issue with politically affiliated trials being decided by public jury.
You would acquit or convict based on their political ideals aligning with yours as opposed to the crime they committed. Without a doubt you would be saying ''guilty'' if they were Trump supporters tearing down a BLM statue. This is a major problem and could be a recurring theme that could go beyond criminal damage, the same principles will apply.
What about the Capitol Hill rioters that committed criminal damage by breaking into the building but didn't hurt anyone? Would it be ''good'' if they were acquitted? Or would you have a different opinion on that one?
I certainly wouldn't think it would be ''good'' if they were acquitted. That's because I am sensible and don't let politics come between what is right and wrong. [Post edited 8 Jan 2022 1:09]
| |
| |
| Colston Statue vandals innocent on 01:01 - Jan 8 with 734 views | Treforys_Jack |
Where are the demo's and activists against countries with very poor human rights issues TODAY., not 300 yrs ago. If your going to be an activist, at least make it relevant. | | | |
| Colston Statue vandals innocent on 05:54 - Jan 8 with 699 views | Kilkennyjack |
They ?
Dont ‘they’ the welsh.
Try ‘us’.
😉 | |
| Beware of the Risen People
|
| |
| Colston Statue vandals innocent on 06:09 - Jan 8 with 692 views | felixstowe_jack |
Those activists would not last long in Russia, China, Ukraine, Burma as was, khakhstan, Saudi Arabia, etc.
The woke generation will only protest in free democracy so they can safely return to their homes at night.
Perhaps they could protest in some parts of London against knife crimes asking the locals to give up their knives. | |
| |
| Colston Statue vandals innocent on 06:10 - Jan 8 with 691 views | Kilkennyjack |
Let me help you.
St Patrick was welsh.
His birth name was Maewyn Succat.
He spoke the British Celtic language known as Brittonic (the ancestor of Welsh, Cornish and Breton).
Probably from Banwen, Neath, St Patrick loved the Swans. | |
| Beware of the Risen People
|
| |
| Colston Statue vandals innocent on 06:38 - Jan 8 with 684 views | felixstowe_jack |
Yes and he was kidnapped and held as a slave by the Irish Slave traders which was is the point of this post. Do we blame the Irish for something that happened 100s of years ago. | |
| |
| Colston Statue vandals innocen on 08:19 - Jan 8 with 665 views | Sirjohnalot |
No, I’m afraid it’s not.
I’ve explained numerous times what the law is and also provided a link explaining all the defences that were run. We seem to be going round in circles. Respectfully, It doesn’t matter if you think it’s irrelevant. That is the law and again, we do not know why the jury acquitted.
The law was properly argued, the crown are not suggesting it wasn’t and it makes no difference at all to a similar case tomorrow.
Im off to parkrun. Have a nice weekend | | | |
| Colston Statue vandals innocen on 08:39 - Jan 8 with 660 views | Dr_Parnassus |
Yes, but your point was they did not admit to committing criminal damage. I replied stating that the defence against that was that they did not commit criminal damage because they felt what they did to it increased its value.
That’s literally what it says on the link you provided. I don’t understand which but you don’t think is correct? | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
