Mooney_Driver wrote:
In the PuF article, they mention dispersion paint – the stuff you put on the walls at home, which in my opinion makes sense as the opacity of the colour is high and a (questionably) sane person might not want to deal with a flammable liquid under pressure in that spraying contraption.In the Sylt case it was said that the Citation was a write off or close to it, as also the engines were sprayed inside. The same was said for the Aztec in Hamburg. I am not sure about this, but that is what was said. So I doubt it is a washable colour.
Peter wrote:
That’s true but then they will get caught (because they are stupid) and got to jail, whereas if they stick to paint they get loads of favourable media coverage and get “selfies with the police”
Yes, but what happens if a few more people tag along that run a clandestine op to damage the infrastructure?
One could run a terrorist cell which just openly runs with some Khmer Vert groups and be never prosecuted for terror offences.
Emir wrote:
The main issue I see here is that someone accessed the area where public transportation vehicles were located and that this person(s) could damage these vehicles and endanger human lives. That’s by definition terrorism regardless the kind of damage they actually made.
Sabotage is not the same as terrorism. I think violent crime is needed for it to be considered terrorism. Placing a bomb inside an aircraft is obviously terrorism. Rendering an aircraft useless is sabotage.
Sabotage is not the same as terrorism. I think violent crime is needed for it to be considered terrorism. Placing a bomb inside an aircraft is obviously terrorism. Rendering an aircraft useless is sabotage.
Again, it’s not crucial here what kind of damage they caused. Much more important fact is that they (easily) managed to get the access to the plane with potential of doing anything including planting a bomb.
Rendering an aircraft useless is sabotage.
US take it seriously (up to 100000$ fine and 20 year prison), since 1984, their “activists” stopped fiddling with airports and airplanes
I would think most countries have something similar. But it’s probably less “police state slam dunk” and much more granulated. Someone still has to press charges though. The same goes for civil law. No one seems to be pressing any charges. Perhaps someone is? but it’s not reported in the media?
In the UK you don’t have to “press charges” in criminal law.
But yes if witnesses don’t cooperate then the prosecution might be stuffed.
Also short of shooting people, and mines etc, you can’t stop someone with wire cutters. Personally anybody who does it is stupid because you just need an armed officer who has got a bit excited…
Peter wrote:
In the UK you don’t have to “press charges” in criminal law.
Not sure what the correct term is (in the UK), complaint? , but someone has to, I would think a legal case doesn’t just happen by itself. In Norway all cases has to start with someone filing a complaint. The difference is mainly that criminal cases (like a murder for instance) has to be investigated by law. The investigation is usually followed by a complaint by the police. Anyone can file a complaint though, civil and criminal. So why isn’t anyone doing it?
But law is complicated. I remember a colleague of mine married a lawyer from Brasil. She moved to Norway, but there’s no job for her here in law business. Never thought of it before, but it’s a stupid thing to become a lawyer if you want to work internationally. It’s the exact opposite of an engineer for instance, who can work everywhere.
but someone has to,
In the UK, the police just need to become aware of a likely crime and they are “supposed” to investigate it.
Whether they actually do depends on various factors; I could tell a few stories, some amusing, some involving outrageous non-PC angles, but on-topic it is obvious they would have become aware since Stansted is swarming with police, many armed.
