Skip to main content

View Diary: Breaking - Tim DeChristopher, Bidder 70, convicted. (236 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Remember, in civil disobedience... (12+ / 0-)

    ...you do the crime with the expectation of doing the time, and you make your trial an additional opportunity to make your point.  You don't complain that the judge and jury failed to value your claims.

    Todo tiempo pasado fue mejor. I don't believe that, but I hear this sig is permanent.

    by Rich in PA on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 04:06:06 PM PST

    •  I forgot my favorite Simpsons quote (6+ / 0-)

      "His only crime was violating U.S. law."

      Todo tiempo pasado fue mejor. I don't believe that, but I hear this sig is permanent.

      by Rich in PA on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 04:09:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Excuse YOU? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ctsteve, happymisanthropy, DawnN

      He was never ALLOWED to make his point.

      When they own the information, they can bend it all they want. -- John Mayer

      by S M Tenneshaw on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 04:16:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's the way the cookie crumbles (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        doc2, Dragon5616, Loge, johnny wurster

        There's actually nothing in our laws that guarantees your ability to use a trial as a platform for your beliefs.  If your putative defense isn't recognized as a defense, that's the way it goes and your civil disobedience falls back on showing that you're willing to do the time to make your point.

        Back in the day, people who committed acts of civil disobedience weren't so naive as to believe the society that countenanced injustice (such that they felt obliged to civil disobedience) would magically provide them a forum to educate that same society.

        Todo tiempo pasado fue mejor. I don't believe that, but I hear this sig is permanent.

        by Rich in PA on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 04:51:34 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, he was (0+ / 0-)

        His argument that his actions were defensible as a matter of necessity was not allowed to be argued in trial.  That much is correct; that is because the matter was argued in a 25 September 2009 pretrial hearing.  Nor did the judge deny that defense out of petulance or spite or whatever other motivations have been ascribed to him in this thread.

        You can read the judge's opinion based on that hearing.

        The necessity defense has very specific legal requirements.  If you do not meet them, you cannot argue it.  The same is true for every affirmative defense (any argument that you did in fact do what was claimed, but that doing so ought not be considered illegal).  There is really no question that DeChristopher did not meet the legal expectations of the defense he claimed: most especially in that he had other legal alternatives, but the judge's response to the causal relationship issue is also pretty compelling.

        We have every right to sympathize with DeChristopher.  He did what he did in an effort to oppose a wrong being performed by the government.  But support for the rule of law has to work both ways.  DeChristopher's actions were laudable in a sense (although arguably futile even had the auction not been revoked), but that does not mean they were not illegal.

        "All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." -Douglas Adams

        by Serpents Choice on Fri Mar 04, 2011 at 08:16:11 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Right, and he didn't. But WE can. n/t (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      happymisanthropy

      Formerly known as Jyrinx.

      “If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.” ― Emma Goldman

      by Code Monkey on Thu Mar 03, 2011 at 05:53:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site