Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemmy
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I never said that. RC fail.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemmy
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
How does one differentiate between a group and an individual? Is any individual who is in a group therefore considered a group? If not, why have this ruling anyway since he can just talk to any individual in the group? They are repressing him from his friends and his family. They are doing it based on political ideology. This is part of a continuing trend within activist "justice" to make the level of consequences reflect NOT the level of criminality, but rather to reflect the level of ideological dissonance with the state. I can furnish many completely ludicrous examples of charges brought against radicals and anarchists and other non-statists if you're interested in me backing up that statement.
|
I am asking you to prove that the consequences do not reflect the level of criminality. You're placing this within a larger context, and I'm questioning its place in that context. The level of criminality is throwing a Molotov cocktail at a police vehicle. I will also accept a police building as similar conditions. Show me an example of the consequences for that level of criminality being less severe than in this scenario. I am not saying it doesn't exist -- I'm just asking you to provide evidence before making such a sweeping claim. From what I can tell, the consequences very much fit the level of criminality and in fact, I would not be surprised if there have been defendants charged with similar crimes in the past that were not offered bail at all.