German Court to Free Woman That Killed US Soldier

Well, let's not start a conspiracy theory here. Democracy and freedom of demonstration are in no danger in Germany and the police is not above the law but trying to uphold it. Which of course can also mean, that they have to uphold it against demonstraters, who -- according to my observations at least -- have more and more a problem with accepting the rules and realizing that a cause can also be lost, even if it is a just one in their eyes.

A close relative of mine is currently in training at the police and she is sent to football stadiums and other events for security and it's a tough job.

You can demonstrate as much as you want but you have to accept at some point, that demonstrating alone doesn't put you on a higher moral or legal ground, let alone make you a better person. The vast majority of the policemen and -women are just trying to do their job well under sometimes very difficult circumstances.

It's normal, that there are glitches but it would be wrong to generalize it.
 
Last edited:
Well, I do know there were massive miscarriages of justice towards left wing protesters back in the 60s and 70s (and maybe even the 80s) in those situations, so I was just interested to know wether or not it was something still happening, or if it was (as I expected) no real issue in todays modern, caring world.

I'm concerned about the authoritarian nature of policing protests these days. The use of agents provocateur is known in several countries (especially in Britain if I'm not mistaken), so you never know.
 
In the 1960's, 1970's and even 1980's demonstrations were very violent, because they often were filled with illegal actions. The right to demonstrate doesn't include going on a destruction rampage, throw molotov cocktails or stones at the police, tear down fences of construction sites or occupy private property.

But sometimes demonstrators are so convinced about the rightness of their cause, that they feel that rules and laws don't apply to them. It gets even worse, when they see, that all their demonstrating doesn't have any effect. They tend to forget, that demonstrating is a right but doesn't automatically include getting their will.

Currently we see that in the "Stuttgart 21" protests against the new railway station. In the end they will have achieved nothing, simply because they acted too late. The project was in the planning for 15 years but they started demonstrating against it just after it passed every legal hurdle and construction was about to begin.

Now they see, that all their peaceful protests probably had no effect in the end, except delaying the whole thing for a while, and immediately protests start getting violent.
 
Last edited:
It is as it should be. Both her sentence and release is perfectly reasonable.
 
Last edited:
MacGuffin said:
In the 1960's, 1970's and even 1980's demonstrations were very violent, because they often were filled with illegal actions. The right to demonstrate doesn't include going on a destruction rampage, throw molotov cocktails or stones at the police, tear down fences of construction sites or occupy private property.

But sometimes demonstrators are so convinced about the rightness of their cause, that they feel that rules and laws don't apply to them. It gets even worse, when they see, that all their demonstrating doesn't have any effect. They tend to forget, that demonstrating is a right but doesn't automatically include getting their will.

Currently we see that in the "Stuttgart 21" protests against the new railway station. In the end they will have achieved nothing, simply because they acted too late. The project was in the planning for 15 years but they started demonstrating against it just after it passed every legal hurdle and construction was about to begin.

Now they see, that all their peaceful protests probably had no effect in the end, except delaying the whole thing for a while, and immediately protests start getting violent.
Click to expand...
Yes, it's about the same as you wrote in your earlier post, even though you've added the "1960's, 1970s and even 1980's" to it. :p

However, I am not nessesarily talking about May-Day riots. Or even violent protests in the first place. I am talking about cases where West-German police grossly overstepped their mark.

And I'm sure you don't deny that took place?

narf said:
http://tagesschau.vo.llnwd.net/d3/video/2011/0621/TV-20110621-1224-2301.webl.h264.mp4

You may not understand the words, but you will understand the pictures. Those fences probably were not torn down by the police to put the blame on protesters. Building foam does not accidently end up in pipes stocked for the building site. Slashing truck tyres is not covered by your right to protest or free speech or whatever.
Click to expand...
I'm not that bad at spoken German. Written is even harder. I'll have a look.

AiR said:
It is as it should be. Both her sentence and release is perfectly reasonable.
Click to expand...
I've missed liberal Swedish AiR. :p
 
nomix said:
And I'm sure you don't deny that took place?
Click to expand...

As I have said: Glitches can always happen but it shouldn't be dramatized or generalized.
 
So it is not at all a general problem?
 
No.
 
I see no reason why someone who is found guilty of murder - not manslaughter, which can often be random or accidental, but murder, premeditated and thought out for no reason other than some selfish personal gain or sick demented malfunction of the mind - should not be executed immediately after the conclusion of their trial (maybe you can give them a year to make sure that they weren't convicted wrongly). Murderers are not helpful, productive members of society. Keeping them alive, in jail or not, for 25 years serves no purpose to the society in which they live, nor the family of the person who they murdered. They are simply a drain on resources and no one should be forced to support the life of a murderer. A normal person does not murder someone. Only an evil or insane person murders someone.

Most crimes have gray areas. Even something like stealing might not be wrong in all cases. But there is no case where murder is morally right. It doesn't matter what the motive is - if it's for fun, for selfish gain, political power, or some sort of angry revenge, murder is murder and no murderer deserves to spend the rest of his life living supported in a prison and draining resources from his society.

Why is that hard to understand exactly?
 
Last edited:
why would it be a different deal for a man? Do you think Germany is that sexist?
 
jsausley said:
I see no reason why someone who is found guilty of murder - not manslaughter, which can often be random or accidental, but murder, premeditated and thought out for no reason other than some selfish personal gain or sick demented malfunction of the mind - should not be executed immediately after the conclusion of their trial (maybe you can give them a year to make sure that they weren't convicted wrongly). Murderers are not helpful, productive members of society. Keeping them alive, in jail or not, for 25 years serves no purpose to the society in which they live, nor the family of the person who they murdered. They are simply a drain on resources and no one should be forced to support the life of a murderer. A normal person does not murder someone. Only an evil or insane person murders someone.

Most crimes have gray areas. Even something like stealing might not be wrong in all cases. But there is no case where murder is morally right. It doesn't matter what the motive is - if it's for fun, for selfish gain, political power, or some sort of angry revenge, murder is murder and no murderer deserves to spend the rest of his life living supported in a prison and draining resources from his society.

Why is that hard to understand exactly?
Click to expand...

The right to life is a basic human right. Taking that away would be no better than the murder itself. Why is that hard to understand exactly?

Also, there are innocent murderers that have been found innocent after many years in prison. Immediate execution sounds great for them.


Cobol: Expect the exact same rulings.
 
No I think that women get a softer deal - here certainly, and in Germany I see no reason why you guys are different. Perhaps your German legal system is - if so I doff my cap.
 
My point was, both men and women have the chance of parole depending on their development, risk assesment, etc. after at least 15 years if sentenced to life. That is equal between the genders. Whether one gets parole a year earlier than the other, idunno.
 
I agree: the right to life is a basic human right, and that's why someone who takes that right away from someone else has just forfeited their own.

It's not the same as stealing. There are circumstances which can make theft acceptable. Do you believe there are circumstances that make murder acceptable? I don't.

It's also ridiculous that a murderer (any criminal, really, but particularly a murderer), in many societies, imposes it upon everyone else to support them for 25+ years while they sit in prison, waiting out their sentence. I can understand prison sentences for people who will be getting out, offenses like theft or whatever, but for us to pay for "life" sentences, I think, is ridiculous.
 
There certainly seems to be a gender bias here. I remember hearing a story about a woman that was angry at her man, so while he was sleeping, she drenched his genital region in with lighter fluid or something and set him on fire. He suffered severe burns, of course, that will no doubt scar him for life. So what happened to her? She got like 5 years, with the possibility of early release.

Can you imagine if a man did that to a woman? They'd lock him up and flush the key.
 
jsausley said:
I see no reason why someone who is found guilty of murder - not manslaughter, which can often be random or accidental, but murder, premeditated and thought out for no reason other than some selfish personal gain or sick demented malfunction of the mind - should not be executed immediately after the conclusion of their trial (maybe you can give them a year to make sure that they weren't convicted wrongly). Murderers are not helpful, productive members of society. Keeping them alive, in jail or not, for 25 years serves no purpose to the society in which they live, nor the family of the person who they murdered. They are simply a drain on resources and no one should be forced to support the life of a murderer. A normal person does not murder someone. Only an evil or insane person murders someone.

Most crimes have gray areas. Even something like stealing might not be wrong in all cases. But there is no case where murder is morally right. It doesn't matter what the motive is - if it's for fun, for selfish gain, political power, or some sort of angry revenge, murder is murder and no murderer deserves to spend the rest of his life living supported in a prison and draining resources from his society.

Why is that hard to understand exactly?
Click to expand...
I know you kill people in the states. We don't. Live with it.

As for wrong convictions, you give your death row convicts several years to go through the system. You still KILL innocent men and women in large numbers.

It's not a safe system, it's not a wise system, it's not a productive system and it's not our system. That's why.
 
jsausley said:
I agree: the right to life is a basic human right, and that's why someone who takes that right away from someone else has just forfeited their own.

It's not the same as stealing. There are circumstances which can make theft acceptable. Do you believe there are circumstances that make murder acceptable? I don't.

It's also ridiculous that a murderer (any criminal, really, but particularly a murderer), in many societies, imposes it upon everyone else to support them for 25+ years while they sit in prison, waiting out their sentence. I can understand prison sentences for people who will be getting out, offenses like theft or whatever, but for us to pay for "life" sentences, I think, is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Sooo... if someone violates someone else's human right, his own human right must be violated? That sounds like "an eye for an eye" to me. If someone shoots you in the knee, he deserves to be shot in the knee as punishment? That's not how our legal system works :no:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top