- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
A British judge has sentenced four Palestine Action protesters as terrorists, handing them custodial sentences ranging from four to eight years.
The unprecedented ruling came despite jurors convicting them of criminal charges not connected to terrorism during the prosecution.
On Friday, the presiding judge, Justice Jeremy Johnson, added a “terrorism connection” to their offences.
In a preliminary ruling in March 2025, Johnson found an “appearance” of a terrorism connection in the case, as he said the activists were attempting to influence the Israeli government by restricting their access to weapons. This information was withheld from the jury who convicted them.
“They” didn’t hurt that policewoman. One of them did and he should should receive appropriate consequences.
Your tirade about violence is quite silly actually, because it’s far too indiscriminate. The modus operandi of Palestine Action was property damage(*). Placing them in the same category as motherfucking ISIS is simply making a mockery of the principle of proportionality, which is a cornerstone of any liberal democracy.
(*) The incident with the policewoman is not indicative of their modus operandi. They did not hope to affect political change by injuring police officers, the same way that, say ISIS used murder as a political tool of terror. It’s the difference between murder and manslaughter.
“They” were more than four people. There were eight others involved that were acquitted. Again, read some more news sources.
How do you know the mindset of these people better than a jury of their peers that saw all of the evidence?
Also in many places it is first degree murder (not manslaughter) if you accidentally kill someone while in the commission of another crime. Modus operandi kinda goes out the window when you’re already engaged in a crime and that results in other crimes.
The intent of the original crime (property destruction) was to influence the government. That intent can be transferred to other crimes they committed (the acts of violence) while doing the original crime. Their intent was to influence the government. They committed crimes and violence happened during the commission of those crimes. The original intent applies to the violent crimes they committed. The intent of the violence was to influence the government.
Anyway it obviously was enough to convince a jury of their peers.
Pro-tip: if you’re going out to do crimes to try to influence the government, maybe refrain from hitting a policewoman multiple times with a fucking sledgehammer. I’m not going to be crying over someone that does something like that going to prison for a long time.
Only a jury of their peers didn’t convict them of terrorism. The judge arbitrarily chose to sentence them as terrorists. Your entire edifice is based on a faulty premise.
So you don’t think that the intent of the original crime doesn’t apply to subsequent crimes committed during the same act?
Or do you know that you’re wrong and can’t admit it and still feel the need to say stuff anyway?