Waihopai activists found not guilty

Waihopai activists found not guilty

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/3466305/Waihopai-activists-found-not-guilty

What a load of sh*te.

Careful. They are watching us.

They might believe me to be a threat,kill me,then get a not guilty verdict.

Do you really think in that case they'd be able to convince a jury? Anyway, how much of a threat are you?

f**king Bullsh*t Decision.

can't they be arrested and toutured for being hippies?

If not, isn't it time the law was changed?

what a joke, they look like f**ken dicks

This.

Its a jury trial so it doesn't necessarily enlarge the scope of the law but I agree I think it is a worrying precedent to set. Allowing people to destroy private property because they think they are right doesn't go down to well with me.

The ploughshares case in England in 1997 is worth a look at. http://www.tridentploughshares.org/article1209

A very bizarre verdict I reckon 

It was only at District Court level so hopefully it is appealed and put right.

So the reasoning is... That this was similar to a house on fire, and they broke in to put it out?

THEY SAVED THE IRAQIS!!!1

why?

What do we know about the spy base and what it does?

Here's what an ex-CIA defence commentator had to say from a recent survey:

Given the range of people I have spoken to, this is not just the comments of a small group of disgruntled personalities. At another time I will reflect on what was specifically said about those people and agencies involved in security policy�that the MoD is less than useless, that the NZDF is a bastion of short-sightedness and political ignorance, that the NZSIS is a politicised, vengeful, incompetent cesspit, that the EAB is worthless and deservedly ignored, that the Police are as much a problem as they are a solution to domestic security issues, that the advice of all of these agencies and others are routinely ignored by the politicians in government at the moment

http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2010/03/the-limitations-of-n-8-wire-and-how-the-politicalpolicy-talent-bench-is-so-thin/

We're paying for it and we don't know what we are selling to whom, and who's getting killed as a result. Have to say I'm surprised at the verdict, but that's why we have juries- because we can't always trust the police and the lawmakers to have our best interests at heart.

It only took them 2 hours to come to the decision.

Stupid scaremongering. It is non-violent civil disobedience. They deflated a massive beach ball around a satellite dish.

"You can break into a house to save the kids if the house is on fire" "We attacked property in a fairly moderate way"

http://www.3news.co.nz/Spy-base-protesters-walk-free/tabid/368/articleID/146876/Default.aspx

I'm anti- Waihopi and don't believe intelligence shd be gathered on NZ soil for a war even our govt decided not to be part of but they admited they caused the damage so I don't believe they shd recieve a not guilty verdict. You can't be not guilty of a crime you admit you did... but you shd be able to plead guilty then get jst a smack on the hand

I get the breaking into a house to save someone thing, not being 'breaking and entering' because there is an immediate threat and you are not doing it because you really want to do damage or break the window or be there particularly.

I'm actually quite amazed that 12 people agreed on this topic as there are always people on both sides who are either instinctively pro or anti the USA and its spying (supposedly also for the greater good), and they wd usually be biased in both directions and completly be unwilling to sway. Even in sumwhat liberal Wgtn in any group of people you will always find a cpl who believe that america shd do what it needs to to look after the civilised world

Interesting point about liberal Wellington, if that trial had been in Chch do you think the verdict would have been the same?

That's a little scary Edward.

So if the police deem a case to have political motives the usual due process doesn't apply?

Juries are an important part of our justice system. I know so many people who knock back their jury service- but it is an important civic duty.

If you or someone with your views on the case had been selected for the jury they wouldn't have been acquitted.

I'm not supporting their views. I don't have an opinion at this stage on that.

Do you know what is recorded from the spy base? Do you know what actions are taken on that basis? Should we?

The not guilty verdict is not necessarily a commentary on the spy base, but might be a balancing of harm done to the punishment.

Iif this is such an important spy base, it is a bit of a joke that three long haired non-commando looking types can breach the security.

I wonder what the judge advised the jury before they went in?

You Christchurch haters forget that Chch had an openly gay mp. Not so easy to stereotype.

Wouldn't the best way to do that be find them guilty and then don't punish them?

We're only guessing what made them come back in 2 hours with not guilty. Could have been any mix of things.

(goes to check the charge)

Okay- well the defence seems to have been a bit of a strange one. Normally ignorance of the law doesn't apply as a defence. Here it seems they got off as it was argued they genuinely believed their actions were lawful.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10632804&pnum=2

stealthkiwi2010-03-18 15:39:27

It is a very odd one, for me Ignorance of the Law not being defence needs to be completely black and white.

Read the article and tell me. You're doing a ba-llb or something aintcha?

Ive just finished one yeah. bopman2010-03-18 16:17:23

I'm a green voting lefty, and I think this decision is ridiculous. Honestly held belief that this action is saving lives is not enough to outweigh actual damage - for me they should need to prove actual risk to lives. Under the logic of this decision, people who disagree with abortion would have the ability to burn down abortion clinics/family planning clinics because they honestly believe that these places commit/facilitate murder.

If you can support the juries decision, and disagree with the above scenario, then you are simply a hypocrite that believes that their own personal beliefs can outway the rule of law.

As I said, for me, it needs actual proof of an actual risk to a person, not just theoretical.

Thats not quite what the judge allowed, they believed the law was different. They believed their actions were within the law and so they had a defence available of mistake of the law.