Okay, ignore the protest part for a moment and look at the crime…
A group conspire to intentionally disrupt a major highway, breaking multiple violations including endangerment of motorists, major disruption of public and emergency services, and recruitment of 45 others to aid the intent, causing~ $3M in damages. And, yes, people of the publiic obviously sustained injuries but there is fortunately no known causation of death. This for 4 days resulting in over 700,000 people impacted and an estimated loss of 50,000 hours to the public.
Now that could be for whatever reason. The Tories, MAGA supporters, West Ham losing, or YouTubers; doesn’t matter. The law shows no bias or care and these actions, especially the conspiring and collusion, are certainly multi-year crimes.
Meanwhile, the cost of climate change and global warming far exceed every measure you’ve quoted, and yet nobody is being imprisoned for causing or accelerating them.
Obviously. But this court case wan’t about climate change.
Hopefully we’ll see more of those appearing as their comprehension of law is whittled away. When one loses, that will open pathways to the rest. The issue is that associated laws are vague and never envisioned such topics, so it is harder to have them stick than it is for a good legal team to wipe them off.
Okay, ignore the protest part for a moment and look at the crime…
No. The “crime” is the means necessary to make the protest heard.
A group conspire to intentionally disrupt a major highway, breaking multiple violations including endangerment of motorists, major disruption of public and emergency services, and recruitment of 45 others to aid the intent, causing~ $3M in damages. And, yes, people of the publiic obviously sustained injuries but there is fortunately no known causation of death. This for 4 days resulting in over 700,000 people impacted and an estimated loss of 50,000 hours to the public
Which is less than nothing compared to the climate change and direct death caused by the fossil fuel industries out of pure greed every fucking day!
Get out of here with your Texas Sharpshooter fallacy bullshit!
Now that could be for whatever reason. The Tories, MAGA supporters, West Ham losing, or YouTubers; doesn’t matter.
Of COURSE it matters! You can’t just wave away their mission to basically save the world to make only the means matter!
By your metric, not only was Gandhi and Martin Luther King wrong, but so were fucking WWII resistance fighters!
Whether or not you’re white, YOU’RE the moderate MLK is talking about here:
Which is less than nothing compared to the climate change and direct death caused by the fossil fuel industries out of pure greed every fucking day!
That’s not the job of a court to handle in a specific case. We do not want a justice system that bends to leniency or malice based on opinions external to the case. Do you understand why society adheres to the concept, “justice is blind”?
Since you’re dropping claims of fallacy out of context, I will help by putting it into context…
The court does not (and should not) care for what cause the sharpshooter in Texas murdered for, they are there to address the committing of murder and sentence justly so.
Unlike those principally involved in law, you have taken a side of personal opinion, making for a nightmare scenario of a judge. Though you obviously wouldn’t last long in the judicial system applying personal bias based on what you think is right over the law.
Democracy isn’t god given, it’s a societal contract. We decided to give certain powers to certain institutions, and these institutions should serve our interests as citizens.
However what I see currently is that these institutions are working for the interests of the super rich. If you’re a nazi, you’ll get a „you you you“ for supporting an ideology that attempts to overthrow democracy. If you’re protesting against climate change or genocide, you’ll get beaten up by the police, and apparently sentenced to long jail terms to set an example.
It isn’t anarchy to try and force politicians to change. Protest is supposed to be disruptive as others already mentioned.
It surely helps calling someone who isn’t of your opinion delusional.
I see you’re from Germany as well. How about the farmer’s protests? How about farmers threatening our vice chancellor and dumping waste on a high way and injuring people with this? How was the reaction, do you remember? Yes that’s right, our government gave in to their demands.
How about literal Nazis murdering people (NSU) and our institutions covering it up. I could go on and on, but the point is, it’s a very bad look on you to defend Nazis lol. I see from your post history that you’re also defending Israel’s genocide, makes sense for trolls like you.
See, that’s the thing with trolls. You call me delusional and all, you’re like “but Nazis would never do this” and then I show you an example where Nazis actually do this and much worse things and not only get away with it but actually rewarded.
And then you have nothing left to say. That’s why you’re a troll.
A protest without making waves is just farting in the wind. Even if they do stand in the road, that’s not deserving of multiple years in prison.
Okay, ignore the protest part for a moment and look at the crime…
A group conspire to intentionally disrupt a major highway, breaking multiple violations including endangerment of motorists, major disruption of public and emergency services, and recruitment of 45 others to aid the intent, causing~ $3M in damages. And, yes, people of the publiic obviously sustained injuries but there is fortunately no known causation of death. This for 4 days resulting in over 700,000 people impacted and an estimated loss of 50,000 hours to the public.
Now that could be for whatever reason. The Tories, MAGA supporters, West Ham losing, or YouTubers; doesn’t matter. The law shows no bias or care and these actions, especially the conspiring and collusion, are certainly multi-year crimes.
Meanwhile, the cost of climate change and global warming far exceed every measure you’ve quoted, and yet nobody is being imprisoned for causing or accelerating them.
If they are going to break the law anyway, go violate an oil executive as hard as that executive is violating the planet.
Obviously. But this court case wan’t about climate change.
Hopefully we’ll see more of those appearing as their comprehension of law is whittled away. When one loses, that will open pathways to the rest. The issue is that associated laws are vague and never envisioned such topics, so it is harder to have them stick than it is for a good legal team to wipe them off.
I look forward to those causing climate disruption facing a judge.
Completely false, the legal system is entirely biased towards the interests of the ruling classes and big business.
Yeah, nah.
No. The “crime” is the means necessary to make the protest heard.
Which is less than nothing compared to the climate change and direct death caused by the fossil fuel industries out of pure greed every fucking day!
Get out of here with your Texas Sharpshooter fallacy bullshit!
Of COURSE it matters! You can’t just wave away their mission to basically save the world to make only the means matter!
By your metric, not only was Gandhi and Martin Luther King wrong, but so were fucking WWII resistance fighters!
Whether or not you’re white, YOU’RE the moderate MLK is talking about here:
That’s not the job of a court to handle in a specific case. We do not want a justice system that bends to leniency or malice based on opinions external to the case. Do you understand why society adheres to the concept, “justice is blind”?
Since you’re dropping claims of fallacy out of context, I will help by putting it into context…
The court does not (and should not) care for what cause the sharpshooter in Texas murdered for, they are there to address the committing of murder and sentence justly so.
Unlike those principally involved in law, you have taken a side of personal opinion, making for a nightmare scenario of a judge. Though you obviously wouldn’t last long in the judicial system applying personal bias based on what you think is right over the law.
You’re against democracy then? You’re advertising anarchy.
Democracy isn’t god given, it’s a societal contract. We decided to give certain powers to certain institutions, and these institutions should serve our interests as citizens.
However what I see currently is that these institutions are working for the interests of the super rich. If you’re a nazi, you’ll get a „you you you“ for supporting an ideology that attempts to overthrow democracy. If you’re protesting against climate change or genocide, you’ll get beaten up by the police, and apparently sentenced to long jail terms to set an example.
It isn’t anarchy to try and force politicians to change. Protest is supposed to be disruptive as others already mentioned.
Can you share a source where a Nazi has done the exact same thing as posted above? If you can’t, why are you even comparing?
It’s not about ideology. It’s about a law. If a Nazi were to block the highway, they’d get the same treatment.
You’re delusional. Not everything is a conspiracy mate.
It surely helps calling someone who isn’t of your opinion delusional.
I see you’re from Germany as well. How about the farmer’s protests? How about farmers threatening our vice chancellor and dumping waste on a high way and injuring people with this? How was the reaction, do you remember? Yes that’s right, our government gave in to their demands.
How about literal Nazis murdering people (NSU) and our institutions covering it up. I could go on and on, but the point is, it’s a very bad look on you to defend Nazis lol. I see from your post history that you’re also defending Israel’s genocide, makes sense for trolls like you.
It surely helps calling someone who isn’t of your opinion a troll.
See, that’s the thing with trolls. You call me delusional and all, you’re like “but Nazis would never do this” and then I show you an example where Nazis actually do this and much worse things and not only get away with it but actually rewarded.
And then you have nothing left to say. That’s why you’re a troll.
Nope, never said that.
Nope, you didn’t. It’s completely unrelated to the topic at hand. The book of law is a bit more complicated than your moral compass.
You’re taking every argument and every source out of context just to make a point. It’s no use arguing with you.
It’s deserving of being forcibly dragged off the street and chained to a lamp post for a couple days…
Then being locked up for a year for being chained to said lamp post?