The Colston Four

mosssideblue said:
We have laws, because we are a civilised Nation. Taking the law into your own hands because you think you are helping someone isn't and shouldn't be the way things work.

If you think that Joe public should be praised for clearing the country of filth is a good thing, then that's your prerogative.

I hate the thought of killers and rapists etc still being at large, but having vigilantes get rid of them, isn't the way our country is run and, imo correctly so
Click to expand...

But you don't seem to understand that they were judged on the 'law' and their peers found them 'not guilty'.

You just disagree with the verdict!!
 
Bigga said:
But you don't seem to understand that they were judged on the 'law' and their peers found them 'not guilty'.

You just disagree with the verdict!!
Click to expand...
If, asa few on here seem to be in agreement with, that not all the material facts of the defence are in the public domain, I fail to reconcile how they think the right verdict was met.

I'm all for ensuring innocent people are not wrongly convicted but yes, I absolutely I disagree with the verdict in this instance because a) they were filmed causing damage and b), they admitted causing damage.
 
mosssideblue said:
If, asa few on here seem to be in agreement with, that not all the material facts of the defence are in the public domain, I fail to reconcile how they think the right verdict was met.

I'm all for ensuring innocent people are not wrongly convicted but yes, I absolutely I disagree with the verdict in this instance because a) they were filmed causing damage and b), they admitted causing damage.
Click to expand...

But... your main argument was that these kids 'broke the law'.

The jury said 'no, they didn't' and they were the ones who listened to all the evidence presented and followed the direction of the judge.

To be fair, I feel the same way when a cop is found 'not guilty' as they 'feared for their lives' when they kill a Human, not an inanimate object.
 
Bigga said:
But... your main argument was that these kids 'broke the law'.

The jury said 'no, they didn't' and they were the ones who listened to all the evidence presented and followed the direction of the judge.

To be fair, I feel the same way when a cop is found 'not guilty' as they 'feared for their lives' when they kill a Human, not an inanimate object.
Click to expand...
So now in the UK, you can rip down a public monument because it causes you offence, spray it with paint and discard it in the drink and it's legal.

I suspect there were considerable costs picked up by Bristol Council to make good the damage to the statue area, any damage to the road leading to the water and recovery and transportation of the statue. Those costs are borne by us all
 
mosssideblue said:
So now in the UK, you can rip down a public monument because it causes you offence, spray it with paint and discard it in the drink and it's legal.

I suspect there were considerable costs picked up by Bristol Council to make good the damage to the statue area, any damage to the road leading to the water and recovery and transportation of the statue. Those costs are borne by us all
Click to expand...

Well, that depends, doesn't it?

There are laws to deal with all these offences and, clearly, when it comes to 'The Colston Four', context matters. Context, the jury, agreed with.

The damage caused would also be contextual and paid for by the same taxpayer that also, unwittingly, paid for a statue depiction of a mass murderer.

It seems to me your argument falls apart here.
 
Bigga said:
But... your main argument was that these kids 'broke the law'.

The jury said 'no, they didn't' and they were the ones who listened to all the evidence presented and followed the direction of the judge.

To be fair, I feel the same way when a cop is found 'not guilty' as they 'feared for their lives' when they kill a Human, not an inanimate object.
Click to expand...
How often does that happen in the uk?
 
Vic said:
Is this "skin colour" thing serious? White people talking about white people as "gammon" is about race?
Click to expand...
Not really. It’s more about playing the victim card. It’s always amusing to see them disparage Scousers since most Liverpudlians would be embarrassed at the level of victimhood shown by the right.
 
Bigga said:
Well, that depends, doesn't it?

There are laws to deal with all these offences and, clearly, when it comes to 'The Colston Four', context matters. Context, the jury, agreed with.

The damage caused would also be contextual and paid for by the same taxpayer that also, unwittingly, paid for a statue depiction of a mass murderer.

It seems to me your argument falls apart here.
Click to expand...
My argument has never fallen apart as the only concrete evidence that those outside of the courtroom know is that the said people were filmed and admitted damage.
 
mosssideblue said:
My argument has never fallen apart as the only concrete evidence that those outside of the courtroom know is that the said people were filmed and admitted damage.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does.

The jury disagrees with your PoV despite the accused admitting to the charges presented. They had to explain why they did what they did which the jury decided was acceptable.

You disagree, so your argument must fall apart somewhere for the jury not to agree with you.
 
Bigga said:
Yes, it does.

The jury disagrees with your PoV despite the accused admitting to the charges presented. They had to explain why they did what they did which the jury decided was acceptable.

You disagree, so your argument must fall apart somewhere for the jury not to agree with you.
Click to expand...
Of course the jury disagrees with my opinion, but if you are happy they got away with it, fair dos, I think the decision will make things worse going fwd, which has always been my beef and why I started the thread.
 
mosssideblue said:
Of course the jury disagrees with my opinion, but if you are happy they got away with it, fair dos, I think the decision will make things worse going fwd, which has always been my beef and why I started the thread.
Click to expand...

But people aren't pulling down statues of bulls, are they? What statues are being attacked?

'Making things worse' means anything could happen, but this was done in context. The context that a mass murderer is being honoured.

You have to reconcile with whether you honour that mass murderer or not. That's on you.

I don't think the same application would have happened to the same degree if that statue was in a museum, where it is now at a higher value than it was in public.
 
Bigga said:
Yes, it does.

The jury disagrees with your PoV despite the accused admitting to the charges presented. They had to explain why they did what they did which the jury decided was acceptable.

You disagree, so your argument must fall apart somewhere for the jury not to agree with you.
Click to expand...
They didn't admit to the charges.
 
mosssideblue said:
Of course the jury disagrees with my opinion, but if you are happy they got away with it, fair dos, I think the decision will make things worse going fwd, which has always been my beef and why I started the thread.
Click to expand...

Why do you think it’ll make things worse going forward? It doesn’t set any precedent, it’s a jury case and I highly doubt some of the arguments that were used in this case will be applicable to many scenarios, nor will jurors be as sympathetic to the cause depending what the action is.

People will still get arrested and face trial by their peers in a courtroom.
 
Bigga said:
But people aren't pulling down statues of bulls, are they? What statues are being attacked?

'Making things worse' means anything could happen, but this was done in context. The context that a mass murderer is being honoured.

You have to reconcile with whether you honour that mass murderer or not. That's on you.

I don't think the same application would have happened to the same degree if that statue was in a museum, where it is now at a higher value than it was in public.
Click to expand...
This thread started in the generic off topic section as I raised it to discuss what I believe was a poor jury decision and another reason why law and order in our country is slipping away.

Mods saw fit to move it to the Political section and at first, I wondered why, but now understand what I believe was the reason, and that was political fall out had they been charged as at the time, there were lots of BLM protests occurring, with many simply out there to cause afray as could be seen on TV.

The statue was put up over 100 years ago, so why now if people were that outraged?

As for its value, what has that got to do with it?
 
meltonblue said:
Why do you think it’ll make things worse going forward? It doesn’t set any precedent, it’s a jury case and I highly doubt some of the arguments that were used in this case will be applicable to many scenarios, nor will jurors be as sympathetic to the cause depending what the action is.

People will still get arrested and face trial by their peers in a courtroom.
Click to expand...

To the layman it does set a precedent. It shows what you can do to public monuments and get away with it.

What exactly was the crime they were preventing, which I read was part of their lawyers defence?
 
mosssideblue said:
To the layman it does set a precedent. It shows what you can do to public monuments and get away with it.

What exactly was the crime they were preventing, which I read was part of their lawyers defence?
Click to expand...

Just posted a link to the judges summary which provides an idea of some of the potential defence arguments the jury could have found (lawfully) persuasive. Clearly none of us were in court to hear the whole thing though so I don’t think we can really assess their validity in our own opinions too much, or at least need to be conscious we don’t have the full picture.

It doesn’t show what you can do to public monuments and get away with, it just shows what these protesters did to Colstons statue was deemed as not constituting criminal damage and that’s it. We’ve had protestors acquitted for similar actions before and it hasn’t subsequently led to everyone going round damaging everything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top