McCann and others acquitted of criminal damage
The law may sometimes be an ass.. but a jury can also be a joke. Were the three who had previously “refused to acknowledge the court” among the six acquitted of criminal damage at the Raytheon software factory in Londonerry in August 2006? Writer Eamonn McCann was found quilty of stealing two computer discs belonging to the company. From the BBC report.
Speaking outside the court, Mr McCann said the men welcomed the jury’s decision and said it had “completely vindicated” their actions.
It did nothing of the sort, Eamonn. Let’s see if other interested parties continue to pressurise the US-based company.
but now I am confused again, Damien.
Sorry to rabbit on but imagine
a fundamentalist Christian Group enters and trashes an abortion clinic.
in court they argue that they believed that they were morally obliged to do this to prevent harm to others and that they thus consider themselves innocent.
At this stage would you applaud, condone, understand or condemn their actions?
a jury of their peers finds them not guilty, does this change your opinion?
lamb dearg, there are no absolutes. If there were, then we could have justice by computer algorithm and not bother humans with the infinite variables. Each case must be considered on its respective merits. In this case, that is the procedure that was followed. McCann was acquitted, and that’s the end of it.
“McCann was acquitted, and that’s the end of it. ”
No, a legal precedent has been set, so it’s not the end of it.
I am not arguing that he should not have been acquitted, I do not know, I did not hear the evidence or the legal arguments. But I feel it right to request that the law is applied fairly and that all people, of all opinions are equal before the law.
If people can destroy the legally held property of a legal business and be judged to have done so legally, that is a significant development in our society which I fear could open the door to all kinds of direct action by all shades of opinion against all kinds of businesses or organisations.
It is worth trying to tease out how such events can be judged on their individual, respective merits while the underpinning law is still applied fairly to all.
Sorry about the vituperative tone of my earlier response to Pete Baker. Thing is, I had become totally pissed off by comments following our trial which seemed to me to show no understanding of the defence which we had presented or the legal basis on which we had been acquited. I see that comments along the same faulty lines continue. But I have had my say and will leave it. Apologies to PB.
Eamonn McCann
Eamonn, don’t rock the system if the vibrations make you nauseous.
No problem, Eamonn.
I’ve been blogging on Slugger for too long to be offended by what’s said about me in the comments zone.
But you did utilise the legal defence of self defence/defence of others? [previous link didn't work, try the 'Self-defense (theory)' link at the above linked site]
lamh dearg,
I’ve answered your question in full in earlier posts. I’m not going to answer it again. Please read my earlier posts.