World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
"They" didn't hurt that policewoman. One of them did and he should should receive appropriate consequences.
Your tirade about violence is quite silly actually, because it's far too indiscriminate. The modus operandi of Palestine Action was property damage(*). Placing them in the same category as motherfucking ISIS is simply making a mockery of the principle of proportionality, which is a cornerstone of any liberal democracy.
(*) The incident with the policewoman is not indicative of their modus operandi. They did not hope to affect political change by injuring police officers, the same way that, say ISIS used murder as a political tool of terror. It's the difference between murder and manslaughter.
"They" were more than four people. There were eight others involved that were acquitted. Again, read some more news sources.
How do you know the mindset of these people better than a jury of their peers that saw all of the evidence?
Also in many places it is first degree murder (not manslaughter) if you accidentally kill someone while in the commission of another crime. Modus operandi kinda goes out the window when you're already engaged in a crime and that results in other crimes.
The intent of the original crime (property destruction) was to influence the government. That intent can be transferred to other crimes they committed (the acts of violence) while doing the original crime. Their intent was to influence the government. They committed crimes and violence happened during the commission of those crimes. The original intent applies to the violent crimes they committed. The intent of the violence was to influence the government.
Anyway it obviously was enough to convince a jury of their peers.
Pro-tip: if you're going out to do crimes to try to influence the government, maybe refrain from hitting a policewoman multiple times with a fucking sledgehammer. I'm not going to be crying over someone that does something like that going to prison for a long time.
Not sure if you noticed but this is not the US. UK law doesn’t have a felony murder rule, intent to commit one crime (property destruction) doesn’t automatically transfer to another (killing) if violence occurs.
If someone dies during an unlawful act like arson, it’s usually manslaughter under the Homicide Act 1957, not murder, unless intent to kill or cause serious harm is proven. If you want to educate yourself on UK law, read up on R v Mitchell (1983) and R v Woollin (1999).
In this scenario, the jury convicted based solely on property damage, with terrorism charges withheld and defences (e.g. legal justification to save lives) barred by the judge.
If protesters set fire to a government building to influence policy and someone dies, they’d likely face manslaughter unless intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm is proven. Transferred malice only applies if harm to a different person was unintended but foreseeable.
This is a property destruction was premeditated crime, and apparently while planning this crime they didn't consider what they'd do when the cops showed up?
Come on, you have to be smarter than this. When you get to the point when you feel the need to put so much effort in defending the actions of a monster that broke a woman's back with a sledgehammer, how do you convince yourself that you're still on the side that cares about people's lives?
To make matters worse this woman has been harassed because she while doing her job she had her back broken. How does this make any sense in terms of basic human decency? Because you see some imagery from a war you're allowed to do horrible things to other people?
Only a jury of their peers didn't convict them of terrorism. The judge arbitrarily chose to sentence them as terrorists. Your entire edifice is based on a faulty premise.
So you don't think that the intent of the original crime doesn't apply to subsequent crimes committed during the same act?
Or do you know that you're wrong and can't admit it and still feel the need to say stuff anyway?
The double negative is breaking my brain.
So, taking into account that:
It seems that in this case the intent didn't matter when it came to allowing the defendants to fully make their case in front of a fully informed jury but it mattered when it came to sentencing them after a conviction had been secured.
Can't have it both ways mate.
Things are often withheld from the jury. Do you have no familiarity with the legal system.
Their intent was to influence government through property damage which escalated to violence.
Do you think Israel's intent of saving lives by destroying Hezbollah and Hamas is justified?. These organizations have weapons and kill people. Israel is destroying their weapons. Some people might get hurt or killed while they do this, but by your logic everything is justified if your intent is to destroy weapons to save lives.
If these criminal's acts are justified because their intent was to "save lives" then the above paragraph is equally valid since it follows the same logic.
You can't have it both ways. Either both Israel's and this group's acts of violence are justified or neither are justified. Which is it?
Lol no, I'm not following you up Stupid Mountain.
"A jury of their peers" whats your favorite boot flavor? spiked rubber or natural rubber?