They had no requirement to identify themselves to campus Public Safety Officers. PSO’s are not police. Locking them in the building is clearly unlawful detainment, and must invalidate any trespass charge as they were prevented from leaving (to be guilty of trespass you must first be notified and then remain in spite of being allowed to leave). Reasonable force is aboslutely an appropriate response to unlawful detainment.
They were told to leave or else they would be trespassing, yet they were prevented from leaving. If you are unlawfully being detained then reasonable force is appropriate to try and leave.
Under these auspices, all direct action that the capitalist system wants to crush is, will, and has been labelled terrorism.
Fun fact that runs parallel to your point: it’s not terrorism if you only destroy property.
Terrorism is defined as using violence (or the threat of violence), against civilians, in pursuit of a political goal. All 3 requirements must be met for it to be terrorism: violence, civilians, politics.
Burning down a Tesla dealership is thus not terrorism. It is violent, and it’s definitely political, but the target is not civilians but property. In a similar manner, the destruction of the NordStream pipeline was also not terrorism, by definition.
On the flipside, you can argue that some things politicians do are terrorism - if you remove someone’s disability benefits that could cause them tangible harm, and thus could be considered violence, in which case a politician attacking someone’s benefits would be committing terrorism against the benefit recipients. It’s also plain to see that invading a country, slaughtering a bunch of people, and bringing some back as hostages is terrorism; but so is raising entire cities and levelling buildings full of civilians.
Terrorism has many different flavours under its definition, yet so many people just have a vague idea of what terrorism is in their minds that doesn’t hold any rationality.
You can’t accuse someone of trespassing if you prevent them from leaving. No one is required to identify themselves to security.
Trespassing requires you to be notified that you shouldn’t be there. Without notice, there is no trespassing. After giving notice, trespassing only occurs if they remain on the property in spite of being notified they’re not allowed to be there. By preventing them from leaving, you are preventing them from satisfying your requirement for them not to be there, and thus undermining any trespassing charge.
Even if they were trespassing, none of that justifies being assaulted by police officers.
In terms of how a sane and civilized society would handle this, well for starters it wouldn’t even get to this point - a sane and civilized society does not support genocide. However their argument is that a sane and civilized society would view the requests as reasonable regardless, they’re not saying that such a society would give in to their demands because of the way they were protesting.
Maybe you could try making an intelligent comment yourself, before you criticise others?
Fun fact: trespassing isn’t even a crime everywhere, not on its own. Also, trespassing doesn’t occur automatically, in a nutshell you have to be notified and then remain on the property in spite of notice - this is why No Trespassing signs are a thing, they serve as notice.
Here, the students had every right to be there so were only trespassing after they were told to leave but remained. You’re absolutely right that they should expect to be arrested after this point. However, they should not expect nor do they deserve to be assaulted by police acting unlawfully (yet apparently shielded by the legal system).
Is it a constant problem? How many child molesters are confessing in church? How many Catholics are child molesters?
The Catholic church’s history with child abuse is to do with Priests and the church covering for them. This is new spin, suggesting that Catholics as a whole contains a lot of child molesters, but I’ve not seen any evidence showing that.
Small correction, a lawyer is only obligated if they believe there is a specific ongoing risk. It’s the difference between saying you committed a crime in the past and saying that you are going to commit one in future.
If some random Catholic confessed to a priest that he was diddling kids, you can bet that as part of the penance, the priest would tell that person to turn themselves in to the authorities. But we know what has happened when the confessor was a priest.
This is the thing that’s bugging me. People are taking the Catholic church’s history with priests committing child abuse, then making a blind logical leap that Catholics in general are child abusers (or a significant number of them). It’s twisting the feelings about Catholic priests and targeting them at a wider group. What’s happening here is insidious.
How many Catholics are child molesters, and how many of them are confessing in church, and what penance were they given?
though I think it’s unlikely to directly have the intended effect and will probably just prevent people from confessing instead.
That’s the thing, if you violate the confidentiality of confessionals then people simply won’t confess, and then you lose the avenue for a priest to try and convince someone to address their behaviour. Maybe that’s not very effective, but it’s more effective than not having it.
In line with your assessment of the article’s agenda, I have to question how much of an issue this even is. Like, the Catholic church has a long history with child abuse, but wasn’t that primarily about Priests abusing children in their parish, and the church protecting its priests? This is an accusation that Catholics themselves are a bunch of child molesters, which is not something I’ve seen any evidence in support of.
That’s not quite accurate. Therapists are required to break confidentiality if they believe there is an ongoing risk to others, not because someone tells them of child abuse they committed in the past. In that sense, a confessional would probably be the same - you don’t confess to things that haven’t happened yet. You’re more likely to express ongoing risk in therapy than in confession.
If the confessor indicated that they were going to continue doing things, that’s when a confession should become reportable, if we’re want the law to be secular and equitable.
Peaceful does not mean lawful. You can peacefully break the law.
The law is not always right - that is why it has the facility to be changed - and when laws are wrong it is a good citizen’s duty to break them, as that is the first step to changing them.
If you prevent them from leaving at any point you invalidate the accusation of trespass.