They were told to leave or else they would be trespassing, yet they were prevented from leaving. If you are unlawfully being detained then reasonable force is appropriate to try and leave.
TWeaK
joined 2 years ago
Under these auspices, all direct action that the capitalist system wants to crush is, will, and has been labelled terrorism.
Fun fact that runs parallel to your point: it's not terrorism if you only destroy property.
Terrorism is defined as using violence (or the threat of violence), against civilians, in pursuit of a political goal. All 3 requirements must be met for it to be terrorism: violence, civilians, politics.
Burning down a Tesla dealership is thus not terrorism. It is violent, and it's definitely political, but the target is not civilians but property. In a similar manner, the destruction of the NordStream pipeline was also not terrorism, by definition.
On the flipside, you can argue that some things politicians do are terrorism - if you remove someone's disability benefits that could cause them tangible harm, and thus could be considered violence, in which case a politician attacking someone's benefits would be committing terrorism against the benefit recipients. It's also plain to see that invading a country, slaughtering a bunch of people, and bringing some back as hostages is terrorism; but so is raising entire cities and levelling buildings full of civilians.
Terrorism has many different flavours under its definition, yet so many people just have a vague idea of what terrorism is in their minds that doesn't hold any rationality.
You can’t accuse someone of trespassing if you prevent them from leaving. No one is required to identify themselves to security.
Trespassing requires you to be notified that you shouldn’t be there. Without notice, there is no trespassing. After giving notice, trespassing only occurs if they remain on the property in spite of being notified they’re not allowed to be there. By preventing them from leaving, you are preventing them from satisfying your requirement for them not to be there, and thus undermining any trespassing charge.
Even if they were trespassing, none of that justifies being assaulted by police officers.
In terms of how a sane and civilized society would handle this, well for starters it wouldn't even get to this point - a sane and civilized society does not support genocide. However their argument is that a sane and civilized society would view the requests as reasonable regardless, they're not saying that such a society would give in to their demands because of the way they were protesting.
Maybe you could try making an intelligent comment yourself, before you criticise others?
Fun fact: trespassing isn't even a crime everywhere, not on its own. Also, trespassing doesn't occur automatically, in a nutshell you have to be notified and then remain on the property in spite of notice - this is why No Trespassing signs are a thing, they serve as notice.
Here, the students had every right to be there so were only trespassing after they were told to leave but remained. You're absolutely right that they should expect to be arrested after this point. However, they should not expect nor do they deserve to be assaulted by police acting unlawfully (yet apparently shielded by the legal system).
Peaceful does not mean lawful. You can peacefully break the law.
The law is not always right - that is why it has the facility to be changed - and when laws are wrong it is a good citizen's duty to break them, as that is the first step to changing them.
I just want to add something right here:
Retirement was pushed to the age of 64 under his name
Macron did this unilaterally by twisting an emergency constitutional power so that he could bypass a vote from the Assembly/Senate.
What are your plans when end of life /support comes to Windows ten?
Switch to Linux and run virtual machines when I need to use Windows.
Right now I don't quite have the drive to do it, but an end to support for Windows 10 would push me over the edge. I just can't stand Windows 11, not even because of all the bullshit but just the way it mandates the UI structure - last time I tried it my dealbreaker was that you can't just have it always display all taskbar icons, you have to manually force each one to show. If a new icon comes up, it will be hidden.
/me Laughs in Windows 10.
It's a bigger problem in the States than elsewhere. In the US, awarding legal costs is the exception, not the norm, so someone with a lot of money and access to lawyers can basically intimidate a defendent into avoiding court. In the rest of the world, courts are much more likely to award costs to a defendent who has done nothing wrong - if you file a frivilous lawsuit and lose, you'll probably have to pay the costs of the person you tried to sue.
This guy's in Germany, so I think he'd be alright if he clearly won. The issue, however, is that courts aren't really equipped for handling highly technical cases and often get things wrong.
They had no requirement to identify themselves to campus Public Safety Officers. PSO's are not police. Locking them in the building is clearly unlawful detainment, and must invalidate any trespass charge as they were prevented from leaving (to be guilty of trespass you must first be notified and then remain in spite of being allowed to leave). Reasonable force is aboslutely an appropriate response to unlawful detainment.