UK student facing trial for spreading pro-liberty propaganda

[mongers]

The police have substantial power and can already terrorize civilians and means to deal with that already exist. In this case the police officer didn't terrorize this civilian, the police officer first asked politely. The policeman was acting within the scope of his power.

I'm within my "scope of power" if I beat my son for mouthing off to me, but that doesn't mean that it's the appropriate response to the situation. One would hope that someone in that position of power would use better judgment. That, I think, is the point.

As has been shown, those above the officers decided that the officers were incorrect in their application of said powers, so I'm not sure how you can continue to defend their actions.

The appropriate response was to ask this kid to stop, the officer did that. The kid refused to stop. The kid was then warned. The kid ignored the warning. The kid was the arrested.

So what if the police hierarchy decided to try and make this go away. This is on the lower end of the scale of what is defacing public property but it is still public property and it is being defaced. The fact that the chalk will disappear next rainstorm is beside the point. Permanent Markers and Paint eventually fade away too, the only difference is time.

You can argue that the policeman showed poor judgement, I'm not arguing against that. I'm saying the policeman acted within the scope of his powers and responsibilities guided by his professional judgement.

You fail at your first assumption.

There's no law regarding "defacing public property" here,it would be a question of if it were criminal damage or not. 

[Ed Anger]

Why are we imitating how Jos speaks?

I can't do Geordie.

[mongers]

Why are we imitating how Jos speaks?

I can't do Geordie.

Repeat after me:

Wen du bout comes en

[Ed Anger]

Baby talk.

[Ed Anger]

I can see why Millwall supporters liked to beat the snot out of Northerners.

[Valmy]

The fact that the chalk will disappear next rainstorm is beside the point.

What is the point?  To blow thousands of public money to keep pavement from suffering zero damage?

[mongers]

I can see why Millwall supporters liked to beat the snot out of Northerners.

Most Millwall fans are fine exemplars of the old London tradition of "all mouth and no trousers", I beat on an equal number of Mancunians any day of the week.

[Ed Anger]

I can see why Millwall supporters liked to beat the snot out of Northerners.

Most Millwall fans are fine exemplars of the old London tradition of "all mouth and no trousers", I beat on an equal number of Mancunians any day of the week.

Are you saying that Panarama doc from '77 lied to me? 

[CountDeMoney]

Are you saying that Panarama doc from '77 lied to me? 

Not nearly as much as Airport '77 lied to you.

[Ed Anger]

Are you saying that Panarama doc from '77 lied to me? 

Not nearly as much as Airport '77 lied to you.

Is that the one where they crashed into the water, sank and they survived?

[CountDeMoney]

Yeah, Grey Lady Down meets The Poseidon Adventure.

Like that aluminum fuselage wouldn't fold like a beer can on Siegy's forehead.

[Neil]

I'm within my "scope of power" if I beat my son for mouthing off to me, but that doesn't mean that it's the appropriate response to the situation. One would hope that someone in that position of power would use better judgment. That, I think, is the point.

Indeed.  The best solution would be to do absolutely nothing.  Your kind of moral cowardice is what makes the world a worse place for everyone.

[Neil]

The fact that the chalk will disappear next rainstorm is beside the point.

What is the point?  To blow thousands of public money to keep pavement from suffering zero damage?

The point isn't the damage to the pavement.  The point is that the guy is a malcontent piece of shit who needs to be hammered back into line, or killed.

[Viking]

The fact that the chalk will disappear next rainstorm is beside the point.

What is the point?  To blow thousands of public money to keep pavement from suffering zero damage?

How does that argument not apply to prosecuting murderers who are in no danger of re-offending?

[Valmy]

How does that argument not apply to prosecuting murderers who are in no danger of re-offending?

HOw is murder zero damage?