Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
If I held a gun to your head, never intended to shoot you but wanted to get out the news for my cause would it be 'non-violent' if no one got hurt?
|
I'd call that apples and oranges. They had no weapons. Their intent was clear: stop the ship and vandalize it. Being a pansy green liberal myself, I can say with reasonable certainty they wouldn't have gotten violent.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Or less extreme...
If one of the police unit sent to deal with it fell to his death trying to get someone off the rigging would it be 'non-violent'?
|
If he was pushed, then it would be violent. If he fell because he slipped, he's clumsy and it's natural selection. Unfortunate, but to blame the protesters is like blaming the owner of the refrigerator that started the fire a fireman died in. Circumstance would have been to blame.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
And yes they did steal, they didn't 'take' the coal, but they cost the company involved a lot of money. They intended to hurt the operation of the coal plant as well. I'm not a lawyer but I'm sure if there is any point in suing greenpeace they would be liable for damages.
|
You don't need to be a lawyer to understand that no theft occurred. The Greenpeace people didn't walk away with that which was lost by the company, so there was no theft. Had Greenpeace taken the coal off the ship, then there would have been a theft, and thus piracy.