TFA: Greta Thunberg and four co-defendants have been found not guilty of breaking the law when they refused to follow police instructions to move on during a climate protest.
District Judge John Laws threw out a public order charge due to “no evidence” and added police attempted to impose “unlawful” conditions during a protest.
I hate the cops as much as everyone but thats not what the ruling says at all.
The case was thrown out not because the cope were doing anything illegal, but because their instructions to the protestors were so unclear they couldn’t be considered a lawful order.
As well as the fact that the incompetent cops didn’t take statements from anyone so there’s no evidence to prove they violated section 14.
Honestly part of me suspects the cops might have did it on purpose because they were ordered to stop it but didn’t really want to. But that’s probably giving them too much credit honestly, incompetence is the most likely answer.
the cops might have did it on purpose because they were ordered to stop it
Yep.
The UK gvmt have been increasingly cracking down on the right to protest. For example, during the proclamation of Charles coronation (royal officers go to towns and read an official proclamation out loud) a man who said (direct quote) “Not in my name” was arrested on a public order offence and dragged through the system until the CPS said they weren’t going to take it any further.
At every turn the current Tory gvmt have urged the Police to be heavy handed with public order ‘offences’ and sort it out later.
oopsy woopsy we made a little fucky boingo that dragged you through the criminal justice system through no fault of your own and at no cost to us, all because of an unknown mix of malice and incompetence
Well there is a law that they were in theory breaking.
A shitty authoritarian law, but still a law.
And the whole point of the criminal justice system is to interpret cases like these and interpret the law and decide if someone is culpable. This is what happens when you have a properly separated system where cops are not judge joury and executioner, so while cops need to have some understanding of the law, its not their job to make those finer interpretations when cases could or could not be illegal. It might seem dumb in this case, but if cops have that power it would allow them to selectively enforce the law and you would have them saying “oh I didn’t arrest the rapist because of this [nonexistent] technicality that makes it not a crime”
your argument is that the police need to be allowed to act with as much malice or incompetence as they like because if there was more oversight in the system they could choose to not arrest rapists?
you’re saying that more oversight would lead to the police having more freedom to enforce the law as they see fit?
No. And I would rather you didn’t purposefully misinterpret what am saying for the sake of trying to “win” a pointless internet argument like a redditor would.
you’re the one attempting to reframe “there should be more oversight on the police’s actions” as “the police should be granted more power to interpret the law as they see fit”
Plausible deniability would certainly be a fun one. But as much as I am pro climate action, cops should generally be neutral. Otherwise it would be very hypocritical if cops acted on different kind of views that I don’t agree with. Either way, the system kinda worked as intended here. That’s a good thing.
I do love how the government and the police are trying to impose a police state, while at the same time having giant arguments with each other and criticizing each other even though they both want the same thing, while at the same time the courts are not having any of it from either group.
I suppose it’s a good thing that these fascist idiots can’t organize themselves, but I really wish they weren’t in positions of authority to begin with.
TFA: Greta Thunberg and four co-defendants have been found not guilty of breaking the law when they refused to follow police instructions to move on during a climate protest.
District Judge John Laws threw out a public order charge due to “no evidence” and added police attempted to impose “unlawful” conditions during a protest.
Oh so they’re like to charge the cops for trying to impose unlawful conditions right? right?
I hate the cops as much as everyone but thats not what the ruling says at all.
The case was thrown out not because the cope were doing anything illegal, but because their instructions to the protestors were so unclear they couldn’t be considered a lawful order.
As well as the fact that the incompetent cops didn’t take statements from anyone so there’s no evidence to prove they violated section 14.
Honestly part of me suspects the cops might have did it on purpose because they were ordered to stop it but didn’t really want to. But that’s probably giving them too much credit honestly, incompetence is the most likely answer.
Yep.
The UK gvmt have been increasingly cracking down on the right to protest. For example, during the proclamation of Charles coronation (royal officers go to towns and read an official proclamation out loud) a man who said (direct quote) “Not in my name” was arrested on a public order offence and dragged through the system until the CPS said they weren’t going to take it any further.
At every turn the current Tory gvmt have urged the Police to be heavy handed with public order ‘offences’ and sort it out later.
oopsy woopsy we made a little fucky boingo that dragged you through the criminal justice system through no fault of your own and at no cost to us, all because of an unknown mix of malice and incompetence
oh well 🤷
Well there is a law that they were in theory breaking.
A shitty authoritarian law, but still a law.
And the whole point of the criminal justice system is to interpret cases like these and interpret the law and decide if someone is culpable. This is what happens when you have a properly separated system where cops are not judge joury and executioner, so while cops need to have some understanding of the law, its not their job to make those finer interpretations when cases could or could not be illegal. It might seem dumb in this case, but if cops have that power it would allow them to selectively enforce the law and you would have them saying “oh I didn’t arrest the rapist because of this [nonexistent] technicality that makes it not a crime”
your argument is that the police need to be allowed to act with as much malice or incompetence as they like because if there was more oversight in the system they could choose to not arrest rapists?
you’re saying that more oversight would lead to the police having more freedom to enforce the law as they see fit?
No. And I would rather you didn’t purposefully misinterpret what am saying for the sake of trying to “win” a pointless internet argument like a redditor would.
you’re the one attempting to reframe “there should be more oversight on the police’s actions” as “the police should be granted more power to interpret the law as they see fit”
Nah
Plausible deniability would certainly be a fun one. But as much as I am pro climate action, cops should generally be neutral. Otherwise it would be very hypocritical if cops acted on different kind of views that I don’t agree with. Either way, the system kinda worked as intended here. That’s a good thing.
Canada’s RCMP are still acting like attack dogs for whichever government speaks (civic, municipal, provincial or federal).
acab
acab
acab
I do love how the government and the police are trying to impose a police state, while at the same time having giant arguments with each other and criticizing each other even though they both want the same thing, while at the same time the courts are not having any of it from either group.
I suppose it’s a good thing that these fascist idiots can’t organize themselves, but I really wish they weren’t in positions of authority to begin with.