Franks on Urewera sentences
May 28th, 2012 at 10:00 am by David FarrarStephen Franks blogs:
It’s a good day for New Zealand. Justice Hansen sentencing the Urewera four was having none of what he called their “utterly implausible” excuses. Well done, police and prosecutors.
But a wider dividend goes well past the four. So called “peace activists” will not rest easier tonight. Their cover is permanently blown by the terrorism evidence even though it could not be used. They know the police know who they are and what they mean by “peace”.
Yes, I personally look forward to the next time Valerie Morse goes on about peace. She may not have been convicted of anything, but the sheer hypocrisy of preaching peace, and running around the bush practicing how to shoot people and use molotov cocktails means she’ll never be taken seriously again.
Even if our “terrorists” were more “Dad’s Army” than Baader Meinhof or Red Brigades, some at least could have become more dangerous. Training camps sift out a hard core from the wannabes. Standard terrorist modus operandi is to process lots of amiable recruits and naive fellow travellers, searching for that nugget – the person willing to kill and be killed for the cause. Being inept is not being innocuous.
Yes, they were the equivalent of Dad’s Army.
There is no moral victory for the offenders and their dupes. Refusing to account for yourself, whilst having your lawyers put forward hilarious explanations of innocence and fighting strenuously to suppress contrary evidence is not a heroic stance.
If the best argument was that they were training to be security guards in Iraq, I’d hate to see the even more implausible arguments they rejected as a defence.
And race had nothing to do with it. Dozens of armed police stormed Dotcom’s castle. Sobered by the Jan Molenaar police killing and siege, it is time to drop the nonsense about Tuhoe being singled out for overbearing treatment.
And worth remembering a total of 18 firearms were found on the raids – far more than Mr Dotcom had.
Related posts:
- Urewera sentences upheld
- Franks on Police HQ
- Thoughts on the Urewera case
- Franks seeking National nomination for Wgtn Central
May 28th, 2012 at 10:13 am
There can be a fine line between not doing anything (apart from training) and Baader Meinhof or Red Brigades type outcomes – if the talk and (especially) the training and tools are in place all it takes is one person and/or one event to precipitate activism into acts of terrorism.
And it could almost be caled tragic how all this has overshadowed genuine Tuhoe concerns.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 10:37 am
I think they were treated rather lightly given the Learned Judge’s sentencing remarks, they might have expected much much sterner sentences. I think the lawyers rushing off to appeal the sentences need to give that sober thought and not get caught up in the politics of the case.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 10:38 am
Semi OT
I am just back from London where we visited the Science Museum.
Vote:As a representative of Maori facial features is …………………… Tame Itis ugly mug. Ahhhhhh !
May 28th, 2012 at 10:40 am
Just imagine Iti as a suicide bomber. There’d be a lot of flying blubber
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 10:43 am
@Fletch
Vote:You mean like this?
May 28th, 2012 at 10:46 am
Lance I didn’t even need to click on that to know which video it linked to…
DPF I’m still not convinced that the Dotcom case wasn’t over the top either. So far it appears that Mr Dotcom has acted as cooperatively as can be expected, after your house has been raided by 80 armed police in helicopters.
Goddam yanks.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 10:47 am
I hope Franks is right about the judge sharing his view that these guys deserved a good prison term because they were running terrorist training camps – that should make appealing the sentence so much easier…
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 11:06 am
Psycho Milt- As someone obviously ‘in the loop’… could you please explain what the exact purpose of these camps was?
Vote:I have heard about half a dozen different explanations from Iti and his supporters- “learning how to hunt” “training for security work in Iraq” etc etc
Some clarification once and for all please??
May 28th, 2012 at 11:08 am
> She may not have been convicted of anything, but…
Let’s hope you never serve on a jury. You’ve demonstrated you couldn’t be impartial.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 11:11 am
Did Franks actually assert that PM?
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 11:13 am
And an excellent blog from Stephen Franks! As for them being akin to ‘Dads’s Army’- I think this just emphasises yet again what an absolute loser that fat slug Tame Iti is…At least he has now found something he is even worse at than the restaurant game!
Vote:(Anyone remember his taxpayer-funded ‘restaurant’ on K-Rd?)
May 28th, 2012 at 11:26 am
Tame Iti – from Dad’s Army to Porridge
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 11:30 am
He’s not in the loop Longknives – he is merely showing that he watched Q&A and heard Russell Fairbrother say that the appeal he has lodged is based on the Judge using evidence ruled inadmissaible as grounds to hand down a custodial sentence. (my summary, not RF’s words.)
Interestingly though, I thought the surveillance evidence which had been ruled inadmissible for the lot that were discharged, was admitted for the final 4 on the basis that the charges against them were more serious. Anyone able to shed light on that?
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 11:36 am
Yeah, well that’s another story altogether isn’t it? Not sure what the armed dawn raid of a man who posed no threat to society has to do with this.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 11:51 am
tvb,
Lawyers don’t appeal anything. The convicted persons must appeal; they even have to sign the appeal notice personally to show that they are in fact filing the appeal and it isn’t being done by someone else.
Psycho Milt,
Actually, it shouldn’t make the appeals any easier at all. It is a perfectly legitimate view to take from the evidence. So long as the sentences were within range for these types of weapons offences, I don’t see a problem with them. Indeed, were I advising the two who got home detention, I would tell them to think very carefully before appealing. They could be in for an uplift if the do.
BHudson,
Exactly. Well said.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 12:30 pm
New Tui Billboard
Valerie Morse – Peace Activist.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 12:39 pm
Psycho Milt- As someone obviously ‘in the loop’… could you please explain what the exact purpose of these camps was?
No idea, although I suspect their purpose was for naive and impractical idealists to indulge themselves in the fantasy that they were something other than that.
He’s not in the loop Longknives – he is merely showing that he watched Q&A and heard Russell Fairbrother say that the appeal he has lodged is based on the Judge using evidence ruled inadmissaible as grounds to hand down a custodial sentence. (my summary, not RF’s words.)
Didn’t see it – but what I’ve seen of the judgement suggests the judge has taken into account what they were charged with rather than what they were found guilty of, which are two different things. If so, the appeal’s a doddle.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 12:44 pm
Actually, it shouldn’t make the appeals any easier at all. It is a perfectly legitimate view to take from the evidence.
So, the judge can take into account that they were a criminal organisation running terrorist camps despite them being found not guilty on those charges, because unlike the jury he’s of the view they are guilty of those things? The legal system never ceases to amaze me.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 12:59 pm
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/7000710/Tame-Iti-appeals-Urewera-conviction
Tame Iti has appealed his conviction and sentence on weapons charges and hopes to be freed on bail while it is heard.
Defence lawyer Russell Fairbrother lodged the appeal this morning.
Iti was convicted of illegal possession of firearms and explosives and was sentenced on Thursday to two-and-a-half years in prison.
His co-offender, Te Rangikaiwhiria Kemara, is also appealing.
Iti and Kemara were convicted along with Urs Signer and Emily Bailey following military-style training camps in the Urewera Ranges in 2006 and 2007.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 1:01 pm
The judge is entitled to draw reasonable conclusions based on the evidence placed before the court. Plus, I thought that the criminal association charges resulted in a hung jury, but I could be wrong on that one.
The judge’s conclusions were entirely reasonable, regardless of the amazingly stupid reason that the defendants instructed their lawyers to advance.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 3:09 pm
Look, I’m happy to be corrected on this, but weren’t they acquitted of terrorism charge? Are we now saying it was ok to trump up the severity of the firearms charge because (wink wink) even though they were found ‘not guilty’ of terrorism, we can misuse one part of the judicial system to paper over the complete f**k of another one by a police case so shonky that it turned the operation into a laughing stock ?
“Their cover is permanently blown by the terrorism evidence even though it could not be used.” But why stop there? Why not just make up evidence to fit the circumstances, if the principle we are promoting is that evidence is just a complication? The amount of tax dollars spent on this, a whole community under armed siege, and this is the best they can do to keep the egg off the police’s face – is by claiming we are in possession of some kind of ‘moral’ victory.?
What’s the point of having courts of law if you can convict a person for one thing and then claim justify the conviction by referring to something they have been found not guilty of, and then inferring that the evidence although useless now vindicates the judgement and sentencing of a different charge?
I thought these things were supposed to be reasoned out on the basis of evidence, not patched together to save the protect the feelings of the incompetents who signally f**d up the whole shambolic operation. .
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 3:43 pm
FE Smith, clients appeal on the advice of their lawyers after careful consideration of its merits. I doubt there would be any client that would appeal AGAINST the advice of their lawyer. And in the case of Iti, Fairbrother has been publicly fronting the decision to appeal.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 4:02 pm
tvb,
Ha, I wish you were right! I have seen them do just that, then wonde why I don’t want to take the appeal that they just filed. I have also had clients refuse to appeal when my advice was that they had a great chance of winning.
With the trial under discussion, it is likely that most appeal points will concentrate on the trial, rather than the sentences. I suspect that the two who received home d may not appeal their sentences while still appealing the verdicts.
I don’t approve of lawyers ‘fronting’ appeals. I don’t think we should be speaking to the media at all! But only an idiot presumes that the defendant’s lawyers are giving their own opinion. They are speaking on behalf of their client, not on their own behalf. It is entirely possible that the defence lawyers think their clients got off lightly, but are still perfectly capable of advancing their clients case effectively. Been in that situation myself. Nothing says that we have to believe or support our client’s political or personal positions.
Lee C,
There were no terrorism charges laid in court.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 4:41 pm
The excuse that they were training to be security guards in Iraq is beyond a joke. Private security companies operating in Iraq and elsewhere recruit ex-soldiers and police – not fringe lunatics who might have read a Tom Clancy novel. In fact most rent-a-warrior operations wouldn’t even give you an interview unless you had at least served some considerable time with the SAS or Police STG.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 5:11 pm
Yes, FE but I suspect Fairbrother sees the Urewera trial more as a political matter than a legal matter. The Learned Judge’s comments on the case suggests he took a very serious view of the criminal conduct. But the seriousness of the sentences do not seem to match those comments. That is why I think Fairbrother and Co should leave well enough alone in the interests of their clients.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 5:23 pm
I have huge concerns about both Frank’s post and the DPF’s notes on this matter.
It does appear to me that the illegally gathered evidence (later validated on the grounds that the charge of belonging to an organised criminal gang was serious enough to override the illegality) was clearly insufficient to convict on that charge, but was then thrown into the mix in the sentencing on the lesser charges of illegal firearms possession.
Illegal possession of firearms is a straightforward licencing (or lack of, thereof) issue and does not, on their own, attract sentences anywhere near approaching those handed out to the two scary tattoed Maori men.
That’s why the complaints that the judge was biased against the two aforementioned men, seem well grounded.
And then one wonders why the defendants put up such implausible reasons for their ‘camps,’ but perhaps those who ridicule the reasons proffered have never been arrested at gunpoint and subjected to what I imagine would be pretty intense interrogation.
As many posters have noted, these two aren’t the brightest light bulbs in the room. A plausible reason would be that they were just playing games that they were making up as they went along and having fun role-playing their favourite fantasies. It’s entirely reasonable that the targets of the rebellion fantasies of the occupied against the occupier (their point of view) would include those who represent the forces of the occupation. Palestinian kids do it in the streets every day, just as we played cowboys and Indians as kids – and the Indians always lost!
And I find the theory that the whole thing was an exercise in demonstrating the overwhelming power of the state over an increasingly noisy minority quite compelling. It doesn’t even need to be a conscious construct – cognitive biases would probably suffice.
For a fuller view of the individuals involved, police and defendants, the doco Operation 8 is highly illuminating. The fact that we may not agree with their politics is insufficient reason to imprison people.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 5:25 pm
The protest is really about Tuhoe, Tino rangatiratanga and Te Urewera. Tell me Urewera Four supporters – at what point would you put your ideology aside and say ‘Hey this has gone too far’? Once they had recruited a nutjob, intentionally or unintentionally, who actually followed through and shot someone or blew something up? With the kinds of texts they were sending each other, would ‘we never intended that to happen’ be a valid defence? Or is no cost too great to secure Te Uruwera for Tuhoe?
Just remember when you eventually get your settlement – the Crown isn’t paying for it, we the people of Aotearoa ALL are. I don’t see any 19th century honky’s rising from their graves and coughing up. Tuhoe has a population of 35,000 – less than 1% of the total population. Taking from wider society to give to a select 1% – sound familiar? You are a bunch of hypocrites.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 5:43 pm
So we have the ‘amazingly stupid’ reason they gave for the training added up against them. In one breath some agree that Iti and co were amazingly stupid, ‘dad’s army’ types as quoted above, in the next their ‘amazingly stupid’ excuse is held up against them when it could be – just as it seems, a stupid panicked response and nothing more. It was hardly ever going to be mitigation. But because it was amazingly stupid doesn’t elevate it to having been sinister and therefore making the entire event sinister. If they plainly weren’t training for Iraq doesn’t mean anything, doesn’t point to anything except that they gave a bloody stupid excuse that nobody would believe. If they’d simply exercised their right to silence, or sought legal advice would that have also been sinister?
Another reliance is that the police found 17 firearms in the raid, can anybody here note the connection between those firearms and the 4 who were convicted? Judging by some comments they can and I’d like to know because it could be very important.
So what if Fairbrother is fronting the appeal, 2 of those convicted can’t comment. Is somebody saying that he’s not acting under client instructions?
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 5:46 pm
And Luc the anti-Semite just cannot help but bring in his favourite people in a comment…
Actuallly, Luc, it is more than just a licensing issue. Are you seriously suggesting that a person who illegally possesses a firearm with the intent of using in armed robberies should get the same sentence as someone who merely forgot to renew their firearms licence?
Those conspiracy theorists who see this as an ‘overwhelming display of the power of the State’ are just plain nuts. This was an operation just like many others, just with some poor practice and execution by the Police in some areas. They received information, investigated it and then acted on it. Simple as that.
tvb,
Vote:Are you suggesting that Fairbrother is in fact driving the appeals, rather than the appellants?
May 28th, 2012 at 5:50 pm
Nostalgia,
No, if their excuse (and it really was dumb) was rejected by the court then it is set aside and is not used against them. The conclusions drawn by the judge would have been taken from the rest of the evidence.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 6:03 pm
Will there be notes on that F E Smith?
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 6:04 pm
Don’t kid yourselves by calling them Dad’s Army. There can be a long game on this and the poison could have been in some followers’ minds.
Vote:So I would not be too surprised to see someone pop up soon and deliver what is really expected.
May 28th, 2012 at 6:08 pm
Nostalgia,
Yes: go to courtsofnz.govt.nz, then choose ‘from the courts’ and then ‘decisions of public interest’. The sentencing remarks are under the High Court section.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 6:27 pm
Bear in mind that when Justice Winkelmann ordered a trial by judge alone – a judgment which was later changed to a trial by jury – she based her decision on the assumption that jurors might employ “improper reasoning processes” (her words) to reach their verdicts. If jurors can employ such processes, presumably judges can too. Justice Hansen seems to have had an axe to grind.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 6:43 pm
No, judges are not allowed to use improper reasoning processes at all. That is why they explain their decision in full, and why the sentence can be appealed if the judge does sentence on an improper basis.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 6:49 pm
Judges are not meant to use improper reasoning purposes…a subtle difference. If judges never used improper reasoning processes, appeals would never be successful.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 7:04 pm
I just got nicked for fucking 191 thru the camera on main road Wainui!!!
Hell the original city fathers made the bloody road road three lanes wide for jokers with fast cars such as me.
The stupid traffic engineers at HCC painted bloody lines all over it to confuse people that go too fast to see them all.
Can you defend me FESter?
How are your fees these days?
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 7:06 pm
No, there is no difference. Judges are not meant to, nor are they allowed to, use improper reasoning.
Hence we have an appellate process to correct them if they do.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 7:18 pm
I read that. Don’t find the distinction in (22) ‘that firearms were accessible to all present’ particularly fair – not knowing why the others present were not charged. But overall Iti f’d up, it’s like he was living in two worlds at once, the word fantasist has been used before and it applies but so does recklessness. I don’t think he anywhere near kept to his job on this, and caused harm far greater than any good he could have possibly achieved with this nonsense.
Having said that only a complete idiot would have had the firearm’s in his possession, 3 rifles – 2 of which were semi auto. This reads like a contradiction all the way through, much like the man but I think even he would agree the contradictions were too wide and he too unwilling to acknowledge them either in the dock – or at the time of his sentencing. Reasonable people were entitled to their concerns and to having the law applied.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 9:07 pm
Luc Hansen, a shit stain on the collective brains trust of Tama Iti and Companys underwear.
Vote:OOPS , they were commando wernt they?Sorry Luc your just a Piss- Weak apologist.
May 28th, 2012 at 9:28 pm
Oh dear, I see F E Smith has been waxing hysterical in my absence. The problem for his point of view, though, it is based on a police construct, not reality. That the original Urewera 18 ended up as the Urewera 4 speaks volumes for the strength of the police evidence. Throw in a jury of non-peers and a scaremongering judge, and throw away the key.
What’s your defintion of anti-Semitism, F E, since you openly accuse me of the sin. You’re a lawyer, so what’s your evidence for ascribing that to me? Or is just supporting the Palestinian cause of redress for the forced dispossession from their ancestral homelands evidence enough for you?
I support Tuhoe’s case for autonomy, too. Does make me racist?
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 10:13 pm
It explains the reason for your bias at least.
The very fact it ended up the Urewera four shows the sheer absurdity of your claims of Judicial bias.
Instead of the overly dramatic rambling, why not state in clear terms what part of the judgement was not based on reality and how the Judge erred legally?
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 10:38 pm
I’m not arguing agaist the judgement, Dexter, just the sentence, as delivered by that one judge – and the brutality of the raid, the effects of which will become more apparent when those terrorised kids grow up.
One can ascribe to the judge either conscious or unconscious bias, and we all have the latter, even judges. We all know that different judges give different sentences, and it’s not unheard of the question sentences. You may have heard of the (In)Sensible Sentencing Trust.
I’ll await the appeal with interest.
Vote:May 28th, 2012 at 11:07 pm
What is my opinion, Luc?
I supported the SC decision.
Doesn’t make me blind, though.
Vote:May 29th, 2012 at 12:03 am
The antics of the state’s domestic security apparatus, and now a reactionary judge, appear calculated to incite acts of ‘terrorism’ rather than quell them.
If specific political and ethnic groups are regularly becoming targets of state violence they will predictably react in a fashion the state can define as terrorist, thus allowing the state an opportunity to offer a rationale to escalate the campaign of violence against those dissenting voices. It is interesting that Luc mentioned the Palestinians, as this tactic of provoking violence to provide a pretext to carry out a large scale massacre is a regularly used tool in the Israeli program of ethnically cleansing the Occupied Territories. (Does F.E.Smith know the Palestinians are a Semitic people?)
There does seem to be a large cadre within the state security apparatus that harbours some pretty extreme right-wing views, it could be argued that holding such views are in fact a prerequisite to being accepted into the ranks of those institutions that make up New Zealand’s domestic security operations. Which would explain why this case was pursued with such an intense level of hysterical prejudice.
It sails far beyond the comprehension of the jackbooted hierarchy that anybody should dare question the authority they so excitedly wield. The likes of Police Commissioner Peter Marshall and Police Association President Greg O’Connor are great examples of the expression of contempt that particular institution has for concepts like freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of expression.
The great white fear underpinning the state sponsored terrorist assault on the Tuhoe nation is that someone as reviled, denigrated and demonised as Tama Iti has a greater understanding of the concept of civilisation than exists amongst the entire pantheon of this country’s ruling elite.
Vote:May 29th, 2012 at 7:46 am
Yoza
What were Iti and his friends doing?
Answer that question honestly with full knowledge of the available evidence from both sides
Including the section eight documentary and the police affidavit available on wiki leaks
remove your extreme left wing glasses for just a few hours
A consider the ramifications for the whole of new Zealand if this was allowed to fester
There are peaceful ways of solving this problem and in reality there is nothing to stop the 5000 tuhoe in the area and some 30000 outside of this pooling their resources and creating the kind of community they desire.
Maybe the reason this has not happened is because only a few actually would live within the constrictions this would create
You are forwarding the concept that armed struggle is justified. If this occurs it would be natural justice for you or yours to become part of the inevitable collateral damage
Be careful what you wish for you may just get
Vote:May 29th, 2012 at 7:52 am
Yoza, Iti made a target of himself and others. He made a very poor decision which he still hasn’t explained. The situation has to be taken at face value, weapons and training camps that probably give credence to the dialogue of two approaches: peaceful then using violence.
He appears not to have understood that a single errant step of this type threatened the validity of a 1000 peaceful steps toward achieving what were previously considered as his aims, now people don’t know his real motives any more. There is a Polynesian way for him to have made redress but he either doesn’t have the knowledge required or maybe simply doesn’t have the guts.
Vote:May 29th, 2012 at 7:58 am
“…this tactic of provoking violence to provide a pretext to carry out a large scale massacre is a regularly used tool in the Israeli program of ethnically cleansing the Occupied Territories.”
Jesus wept! Do you actually read what you write before you hit the ‘submit comment’ button?
Vote:May 29th, 2012 at 8:02 am
Griff, They were carrying out team-building exercises on private property. No other explanation is necessary. Unless, of course, you believe the state should have the right to carry out electronic surveillance on everyone all the time within and without their private dwellings under the pretext that if people are not doing anything wrong they have nothing to worry about.
It is the extraordinarily violent response of this country’s security apparatus that has ensured and validated a sense of injustice that will fester for decades to come among Tuhoe, the wider Maori community, dissenting voices and those throughout the general population that believe in ideas like common human decency and natural justice.
“Be careful what you wish for you may just get” I have absolutely no idea what this means, you may have to elaborate.
Vote:May 29th, 2012 at 8:22 am
Funny yoza
Thats not what Iti and co said in court
are you saying that they lied ?
Could you please expand on the purpose of this team they where creating
Vote:May 29th, 2012 at 8:23 am
“They were carrying out team-building exercises on private property. No other explanation is necessary”
Comedy Gold!
Would you like to buy a bridge?
Vote:May 29th, 2012 at 10:25 am
Great deflection, F.E., but I have not raised any objection to decisions on matters of law. I am objecting to the sentence. It’s a common subject of discussion in this country – as I pointed out, there is even a high profile organisation dedicated to doing just that, yet somehow little ol’ me is not allowed to speak up?
And even though no terrorism charges were laid, and the ones that were charged with anything were not convicted on the most serious charge, which is not a terrorism charge, Franks, DPF and F E Smith and most posters here are still accusing the group of being terrorists, or, if you like, wannabe terrorists. F E Smith, at least, should know better.
Finally, I see F E Smith has left unanswered my perfectly reasonable question as to how he justifies smearing me with the defamatory accusation of anti-Semitism. I expect such cruddy behaviour from all the anonymous creeps on here, but is this conduct becoming of a lawyer?
Vote:May 29th, 2012 at 10:38 am
No one knows whether F E Smith is a lawyer or not, Luc. This is Kiwiblog, so it doesn’t matter in any event. It’s not like anyone can sign in and say “I’m an expert on xyz, so you should listen to me” – expertise is irrelevant.
Vote:May 29th, 2012 at 11:10 am
He says he is a criminal lawyer, mike. He talks about it often.
Vote:May 29th, 2012 at 11:13 am
And on the website his name links to, here is a front page article:
http://www.justicehottub.fh.net.nz/judicial-accountability-by-gil-elliott/
Judicial accountability is OK for some, it seems.
Vote:May 29th, 2012 at 11:18 am
On the other hand, he doesn’t show up on the register.
Maybe he’s a defrocked lawyer?
Vote:May 29th, 2012 at 11:25 am
> Hence we have an appellate process to correct them if they do.
Sometimes you argue for the sake of it.
The appellate process sometimes finds that judges have overstepped the mark. Judges make mistakes. Their reasoning can be just as flawed as jurors’ (and lawyers’).
Vote:May 29th, 2012 at 11:30 am
> how he justifies smearing me with the defamatory accusation of anti-Semitism.
F E Smith doesn’t tolerate any crticism of Israel or Jews. In his eyes, they can do no wrong. So killing Palestinian children is acceptable and not something to be debated. Go figure.
Vote:May 29th, 2012 at 1:39 pm
Hey. I got the triumvirate against me: Luc, Ross69 and Mikenmild!
Hi guys!
Luc,
I never said that they were terrorists. Stop putting words in my mouth (although it is par for the course with you). I don’t know why they were doing what they were doing. I just know the descriptions of what they were doing. I like guns as much as the next bloke, and what they were doing sounds like a hell of a lot of fun. They were simply doing it illegally. Plus, it is pretty difficult to explain away Molotov Cocktails!
I think the sentences were about right; perhaps a little light with the home d sentences.
And I certainly didn’t think terrorism charges were appropriate. Still don’t. But if you have guns unlawfully, then you should expect a prison sentence, and count yourself lucky if you don’t get one.
All three of you,
I am not going to bite on the Israel jibes. You guys seem to accept anything as long as it is anti-Israel. This isn’t the thread to discuss that, and I don’t have the inclination. But my opinion of Luc is based on reading the bile he has written here on KB for a while now. It is my opinion and I think it is a fair one. I don’t hold that opinion about Ross69 or MM, I think you two are just misguided.
Yoza,
I know you are trolling on purpose, but every time I read your comments, I feel like I have stepped back into the 30s. Next you’ll be telling us Uncle Joe is here to help!
Vote: