UK Climate Campaigners Get 'Utterly Disproportionate' Sentences - eviltoast
  • Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    It was a simple question which you’ve decided to not answer and instead make a snide remark.

    So I’ll ask it again what are your feelings on the practice of Kettling? It seems like if you’re ok with being illegally detained by protesters, you would be just as ok with being illegally detained by police?

    Road closures are not

    • knightly the Sneptaur@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Pretty simple leading question, of course. If you want to equate police malfeasance with protesters who dare cause any sort of disturbance to the status quo, then that sounds like a “you” problem.

      • Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        I see, so when police violate an individual’s rights it’s malfeasance on their part. Yet when protesters that you happen to agree with violate those rights in a shockingly similar manner, it’s a disturbance and the individual should “get over it” and it’s their problem.

        It was indeed a very simple question which you tried to side step. You seem to understand how an individual who doesn’t have a stake in your cause could feel victimized by actions that directly affect their safety and liberty. But you and the protesters don’t care about those particular victims, you want just the attention.

          • Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            It is disingenuous to conflate a generic traffic jam that happens naturally, with intentionally blocking traffic and conspiring to detain people for the purpose of publicity.

            The two are not nearly the same.

            • knightly the Sneptaur@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              There’s no such thing as a “traffic jam that happens naturally”, they all have causes, ranging from individuals directly responsible for collisions to failures of design and implementation that cause congestion during normal use by daily commuters.

              If they all get a pass for “causing traffic” then why are you singling out protesters as an exception?

                • knightly the Sneptaur@pawb.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  Burden of proof. Involuntary manslaughter doesn’t require prosecutors to demonstrate intent or malice aforethought.

                  Why don’t highway engineers get charged with manslaughter when their designs result in death?

                  • Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    “doesn’t require prosecutors to demonstrate intent or malice aforethought.”

                    The protesters displayed all of the traits you mentioned. By conspiring and planning to commit unlawful actions. The protesters displayed intent to break the law detain/disrupt the travel of innocent bystanders (illegal in itself) and potentially endangering their lives in the process (super duper illegal).

                    Highway engineers can be charged with manslaughter if they display willful ignorance, intent to break the law or have demonstrated that they were deceitful in acquiring a position they were not accredited for. Generally speaking that is very hard to prove in court especially when dealing with a large corporation with legions of lawyers to back them up. Hence why it is rare.

                    It is not so hard to prove with a dozen or so activists who have a history of such actions which are wildly unpopular and illegal. Hence why they are charged.

                    But there are examples such as the recent Boeing 737 Max disasters where criminal culpability for engineers and managers have been proven. I’d argue the punishment or rather the settlement isn’t enough in this particular case, but that wasn’t your question. Your question was why aren’t they charged.