Isn't one shoulder higher than the other in the pic? Zoom in.

Perfect example of the craziness the judge was trying to prevent.

I don't think so. He's punishing them for not following his directions.

If it becomes a trend for these kinds of protesters to lecture in the courtroom to try and sway the jury, there are going to be consequences.

Sure, they obviously know what is going on, but the court doesn't want the defendants putting on a lecture on how bad climate change is and how we need to act now or they had no choice but to do what they did.

There is no "not guilty based on climate change". And nor should there be.

>You are correct. I did not suggest that they should be let off. The judge is preventing them from explaining their motivations in court.

But he is doing that because he believes that the defendants will use their motivation to influence the jury to let them off. (Which appears to be what happened.)

>He concluded that the defendants had either set out to “manipulate” the jury into acquitting them even if they were sure of the pair’s guilt, or to use the trial to continue their protest within the courtroom.

>“Either motivation would be serious as you would be seeking to set yourselves above the law,” the judge said.

Seems pretty clear. They don't want people breaking the law and then saying that even though they did it, it was OK because they were fighting climate change.

People should be able to see how bad it is be to allow people to mount such a defence, and how juries letting people get away with crimes based on ideology would be a very bad thing.

The court decides whether they are guilty or not, not that what they were doing was so noble that they shouldn't be found guilty of a crime for doing it.

Something like self-defense is different, as the circumstances can mean that the accused is in reality not guilty of a crime.

>But surely mentioning the motivation for their crime is relevant to the case and should be admitted in court.

It's their defence. So they would be saying that the fact that they did something because of climate change should have some effect on their guilt or sentencing.

Most decisions made in court have an effect on subsequent cases, so accepting it might set a precedent for these kinds of ideological beliefs to be accepted in court.

It's fairly obvious why fighting climate change isn't allowed in someone's defence.

Overacting a little.

>Actually, cops are not allowed to assault citizens without cause, and the cause can't be because they wanted to. Now the courts may not choose to enforce these violations of civil rights, or the crimes that officers get away with, but that doesn't change the fact that they are breaking the law.

The guy was acting suspiciously and the police officer wanted him to get out of the car. Police have the power to do this. Citizens have no right to resist or fight. > >And in case you are wondering, that is how humans respond to being suddenly and violently attacked. Your body goes into fight, flight, or freeze. Most folks will respond physically when anyone suddenly grabs you. It's called a survival instinct, and cops shouldn't get to use that basic human response to get away with murder.

Flight or flight is not a legal defence for resisting a police officer and fighting with him. This is a ridiculous idea. > >I'm very sorry that you understand so little about the real world. You have a fine evening in your little fairytale land.

You are the one living in a fantasy world. One where people don't have to do what the police say and can fight with them if they choose.

I would say the same to you, but I don't think anyone could really have a fine evening living in such a messed up place, even if it is imaginary.

The facts are in the video. You should watch it.

Your take is the dumb one.

Clearly the guy violently resisted. Saying "he was violently thrown to the ground" and other blah blah means nothing, when the video shows he was resisting and fighting the cop from the minute he tried to get him out of the car.

It's pretty simple. A police officer is allowed to grab someone. A citizen is not allowed to then fight with the cop in response to being grabbed.

Your argument is weak so you are forced to make petty insults.

Watch the video. It shows what happened.

I'm not sure how you think making a story about what didn't happen will help your case.

We can all see the video and you are wrong about what you claim happened.

Sorry to disappointed you, but I don't plan on fighting with a cop any time soon.

The guy could have obeyed orders, he could have not resisted, he could have not fought with the officer.

He chose to do that and it was that which made the situation violent.

>Looks reasonably accurate to me.

Perhaps you have some sort of mental impairment, or English is a second language to you, but when you say someone is "non-violent", but there is a video showing him being violent, people are going to start questioning your claims.

>At what point did he warrant two rounds to the chest?

I suppose at some point during the fight the police officer felt his life was in danger. Apparently he went for his gun.

It sounds like the man was somewhat disturbed, based on his reported behaviour prior to police arriving. He certainly failed to do what was asked of him and fought with the police when they tried to remove him from the car.

You can't change what actually happened simply by saying things you would like to be true.

It's unfortunate, but these things happen.

Have you seen the video?

The reality doesn't support what you are saying.

Imagine being ok with malls or shopping centres, but having an issue with McDonald's.

Is it bad because poor people go there?

Ah, "Fünfzig Shafen Von Grau"!

I think I saw that.

Just lovely, lovely German... 🥰

What's a shafe?

I think you've mixed your metaphors up a little.

One doesn't desire to reach the summit of an iceberg. I don't think and iceberg even has a summit.

The iceberg metaphor is that you only see a small part of someone's success. You see the results but you do not see the effort.

So presumably the thieves were hoping that the mint would just make a whole new set that were identical in every way, allowing them to mint their own coins, rather than just designing a new one?