Jury decides that threat of global warming justifies breaking the law

[applecorped]

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cleared-jury-decides-that-threat-of-global-warming-justifies-breaking-the-law-925561.html

[mrbaracuda]

**** me, I need a gun and I need it now.
You never know when those 'activists' come 'round.

[PogoPedant]

[rule8]'n Greenpeace, undermining yet another just cause.

[RandFan]

:(

Dumb dumb dumb.

[rwguinn]

Here I was thinking that the US was the only place with that much idiocy on juries...

[Ashles]

Yes heard about this today. Unbelievable.

Does this mean I can break into their houses and steal/break anything I deem not environmentally friendly?
(Dishwasher/Washing machine/Detergent/Toothpaste/Computer/TV/Boiler etc.)

[Arthur Denton]

That's really an outrage! Honest, it disgusts me to think that you can vandalize in the name of the environment. Think about the possibilities of "pseudo environment defenders" actually pursuing obscure political power through violence.

[quixotecoyote]

I would have thought the decision over whether 'imminent' can apply to global warming would be made by a judge, not a jury. It seems a question of law rather than a question of fact.

[RadioactiveMan]

If someone had actively attempted to stop these people from doing the damage, could they have then been liable for preventing an act that would have (allegedly) prevented greater damage? In other words, given that the act was "lawful," did anyone have the right to stop them, and if they tried, could they have been held criminally or civilly at fault?

[Zygar]

This verdict can be used to justify any act of eco-terrorism. Pardon me while I acquire some nukes to drop on some offshore oil rigs.

[Fiona]

Interesting that the response to this refers to eco-terrorism and nukes. They painted a word on a chimney. I think it is a little hysterical to imagine that the next step is violence, but I am sure you have evidence to encourage this fear.

The uk has signed up to agreements to limit carbon emissions.There is doubt as to whether the targets will be met and there is doubt as to whether they are adequate. As far as global warming goes the scientific consensus appears to be that there is evidence that it is happening and that it is a serious problem with large scale adverse consequences.

In those circumstances the people who took this action did just enough to gain publicity for their point of view by shutting down the power station for a short time. They do not deny they did this nor the costs of doing it: they based their case on the fact that it was necessary to prevent a greater harm. They convinced the court and they won their case. I see nothing to be outraged about. I think we need a slippery slope argument to even begin to make a case against them: and that is all I can see here

There is a bias in the planning process insofar as only certain kinds of issues are routinely addressed and included in the decision making. Till recently more remote effects have been overlooked or ruled irrelevant: and thus the interests of business are set against very local concerns. Yet it is not obvious to me why the wider picture is not relevant. If the large companies make a big profit from doing things which cause harm to a lot of people indirectly then I think that has to be included in our decision making. I do not know how the cost/benefit analysis would come out in this or any other case if this were done: but I do think it should be part of the calculation. But those who seek to introduce it are not finding it easy to be heard. This kind of direct action raises the issue and brings it into the equation. I cannot understand why this is seen to be a bad thing.

[applecorped]

Interesting that the response to this refers to eco-terrorism and nukes. They painted a word on a chimney. I think it is a little hysterical to imagine that the next step is violence, but I am sure you have evidence to encourage this fear.

The uk has signed up to agreements to limit carbon emissions.There is doubt as to whether the targets will be met and there is doubt as to whether they are adequate. As far as global warming goes the scientific consensus appears to be that there is evidence that it is happening and that it is a serious problem with large scale adverse consequences.

In those circumstances the people who took this action did just enough to gain publicity for their point of view by shutting down the power station for a short time. They do not deny they did this nor the costs of doing it: they based their case on the fact that it was necessary to prevent a greater harm. They convinced the court and they won their case. I see nothing to be outraged about. I think we need a slippery slope argument to even begin to make a case against them: and that is all I can see here

There is a bias in the planning process insofar as only certain kinds of issues are routinely addressed and included in the decision making. Till recently more remote effects have been overlooked or ruled irrelevant: and thus the interests of business are set against very local concerns. Yet it is not obvious to me why the wider picture is not relevant. If the large companies make a big profit from doing things which cause harm to a lot of people indirectly then I think that has to be included in our decision making. I do not know how the cost/benefit analysis would come out in this or any other case if this were done: but I do think it should be part of the calculation. But those who seek to introduce it are not finding it easy to be heard. This kind of direct action raises the issue and brings it into the equation. I cannot understand why this is seen to be a bad thing.

Do you agree with the jury's decision?

[Fiona]

I do not know all the facts of the case. I see nothing outrageous in it though

[RandFan]

In those circumstances the people who took this action did just enough to gain publicity for their point of view by shutting down the power station for a short time. They do not deny they did this nor the costs of doing it: they based their case on the fact that it was necessary to prevent a greater harm. They convinced the court and they won their case. I see nothing to be outraged about. "Necessary"? What else would they (you) consider "necessary"? We are at a crossroads of imminent harm. The fate of earth and mankind hangs in the balance. What is out of bounds in your eyes? Forget slippery slope. What would you think moral or immoral in order to gain sufficient publicity?

I seriously doubt you can consistently maintain this position at any cost. But I think it would be interesting to find our what you would entertain.

BTW, the decision is outrageous.

[RandFan]

One more thing:

A nation of laws doesn't function by whim and personal ego. Civil disobediance is a good thing but only if those who do so are willing and able to be punished for their actions. Everyone has a reason to think their reasons justify civil disobedience including abortion rights protestors.

[Fiona]

There is legal basis for acquittal and they were acquitted by due process. Your position appears to be that the jury must not acquit whatever the law. I do not think it is me who is disrespecting the rule of law :)

[applecorped]

I do not know all the facts of the case. I see nothing outrageous in it though


You don't see a problem here at all? Really?

[Fiona]

No I don't
They took their decision: they went to court and presented their case. That is what is supposed to happen and the fact the decision went one way rather than another was based on existing law. What is the problem?

[applecorped]

Hmmmm.....I see were you're going and it's true that one should accept a jury's finding as that is the way it is set up. I don't always agree with jury verdicts (OJ Simpson) but I do think it is still the best system available. I am concerned about the message this particular verdict will send to other groups.

[Arthur Denton]

No I don't
They took their decision: they went to court and presented their case. That is what is supposed to happen and the fact the decision went one way rather than another was based on existing law. What is the problem?

It opens a breach in the law. Similar decisions may be taken by judges on other places. In fact, if they decide you pollute too much at home and bring your house down because you're away from your conservation quota, a judge and a jury will have to take the decision into account, and the risk of you not seeing those vandals under arrest/feeling the long arm of the justice is higher than it was before. It's about private property and civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is still disobedience, and vandalism is still vandalism, no matter the cause.

[mhaze]

No I don't
They took their decision: they went to court and presented their case. That is what is supposed to happen and the fact the decision went one way rather than another was based on existing law. What is the problem?Is the prosecutor unbiased?

[Darat]

I'm with Fiona here - I don't understand what the compliant is, these people were subject to the due process of the law. Is the problem that the due process returned a verdict that you think is wrong? That we have a law in Britain that means that a court can consider the proportionality of the criminal damage to the outcome?


(Have to say if I was on the jury I wouldn't have cleared them but that's a different point.)

[RandFan]

There is legal basis for acquittal and they were acquitted by due process. Your position appears to be that the jury must not acquit whatever the law. I do not think it is me who is disrespecting the rule of law :) No, my position is that humans are capable of ruling counter to the law. It's called jury nullification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification).

Jury nullification means making a law void by jury decision; in other words, "the process whereby a jury in a criminal case effectively nullifies a law by acquitting a defendant regardless of the weight of evidence against him or her."Smilie notwithstanding it's BS.

[Fiona]

That is not what happened here, Randfan. That is what happened in the Clive Ponting case and there is a different argument to be had about that.

[Darat]

Randfan - this wasn't "jury nullification" (which I have to admit I don't know if it even exists in any of the British legal systems?) they were charged under a law that allows a defence of a type of justifiable damage.

[RandFan]

That is not what happened here, Randfan.Oh, well, you declare it thus it must be thus.

Thanks for that.

So argument is pointless now?

[Fiona]

The argument from jury nullification is irrelevant.

[Darat]

Oh, well, you declare it thus it must be thus.

Thanks for that.

So argument is pointless now?

Fiona hasn't "declared it" - it's in the article that was originally linked to, 2nd paragraph:



...snip...

The defence of "lawful excuse" under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 allows damage to be caused to property to prevent even greater damage – such as breaking down the door of a burning house to tackle a fire.


...snip...

[applecorped]

I was going to dig in and disagree with Fiona but Jury Nullification has it's place. Rightly or wrongly I would be apt to let a grieving father off for killing his childs murderer. In this case my bias towards Greenpeace caused me to immediatley label this particular verdict as wrong (which I still think it is but the jury has spoken, so be it).

[RandFan]

(which I have to admit I don't know if it even exists in any of the British legal systems?) :D

And you would stop it how? What's the point of having a judge or jury make a decision if a judge or jury isn't allowed to make a decision. If you know what is the correct answer and what is the correct basis for that answer then why have a judge and jury at all. You suggest the process is only objective. If so we only need computers.

I'm not sure you've thought this through.

[Darat]

What on earth are you going on about?

[RandFan]

Fiona hasn't "declared it" - it's in the article that was originally linked to, 2nd paragraph: The greater damage has not been established as objective fact.

That's nonsense. It's something to hang ones hat on. In the end the judge or jury can do what they please, within certain restraints of course.

If this were a house on fire or if there were objective evidence that the defendants were justified in their fears then I would think the law would have some legitimacy in this case.

[Fiona]

@ Darat. Jury nullification is a term which describes what happened to Clive Ponting, most famously in recent times. It is a completely different phenomenon. Interesting though.

http://www.freedomtocare.org/page110.htm

[RandFan]

What on earth are you going on about?
3.5 gallons, you?

In America I can kill someone to defend myself. I can't go next door and shoot my neighbor in his sleep because I think he is going to kill me.

However, if my neighbor is a racist and no one likes him a jury could acquit me on the ostensible basis that my fear was reasonable.

Got it?

[Darat]

No Randfan - perhaps my brain has shutdown for the night but I havena clue!

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Here is a link to the Act:
http://sixthformlaw.info/06_misc/statutes/04_criminal_damage_act_1971.htm

And a commentary for the Crown Prosecution Service:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section11/chapter_b.html

[Lonewulf]

The argument is that it's okay for the jury to be able to rule that a little bit of damage to a corporation is okay if the defense relies upon the argument that there could be a much greater deal of damage coming from the corporation's methods, I.E., global warming coming from coal plants... right?

[Darat]

@ Darat. Jury nullification is a term which describes what happened to Clive Ponting, most famously in recent times. It is a completely different phenomenon. Interesting though.

http://www.freedomtocare.org/page110.htm

Oh I remember the Clive Ponting case but I'm sure jury nullification has come up on the Forum before and I thought I had a vague recollection that (at least for E/W/NI law) it can't really happen as the judge can always in effect order a jury to return a certain verdict or just make the verdict determination if the jury won't?

ETA: OK it's official my brain has shutdown for the night and I'm running off my spinal cord - "jury nullification" is a fundamental right of a jury in English law.

[Darat]

The argument is that it's okay for the jury to be able to rule that a little bit of damage to a corporation is okay if the defense relies upon the argument that there could be a much greater deal of damage coming from the corporation's methods, I.E., global warming coming from coal plants... right?

If my spinal cord is to be trusted - pretty much yes.

[Fiona]

not quite:


Section 5

(1) This section applies to any offence under section 1(1) above and any offence under section 2 or 3 above other than one involving a threat by the person charged to destroy or damage property in a way which he knows is likely to endanger the life of another or involving an intent by the person charged to use or cause or permit the use of something in his custody or under his control so to destroy or damage property.

(2) A person charged with an offence to which this section applies shall, whether or not he would be treated for the purposes of this Act as having a lawful excuse apart from this subsection, be treated for those purposes as having a lawful excuse--
(a) if at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence he believed that the person or persons whom he believed to be entitled to consent to the destruction of or damage to the property in question had so consented, or would have so consented to it if he or they had known of the destruction or damage and its circumstances; or

(b) if he destroyed or damaged or threatened to destroy or damage the property in question or, in the case of a charge of an offence under section 3 above, intended to use or cause or permit the use of something to destroy or damage it, in order to protect property belonging to himself or another or a right or interest in property which was or which he believed to be vested in himself or another, and at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence he believed--
(i) that the property, right or interest was in immediate need of protection; and

(ii) that the means of protection adopted or proposed to be adopted were or would be reasonable having regard to all the circumstances.
(3) For the purposes of this section it is immaterial whether a belief is justified or not if it is honestly held.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (2) above a right or interest in property includes any right or privilege in or over land, whether created by grant, licence or otherwise.

(5) This section shall not be construed as casting doubt on any defence recognised by law as a defence to criminal charges.

[Fiona]

ETA: OK it's official my brain has shutdown for the night and I'm running off my spinal cord - "jury nullification" is a fundamental right of a jury in English law.


Yes. Established here, I think

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200405/ldjudgmt/jd050210/wang-2.htm

18. We would accordingly allow the appeal, quash the appellant's conviction and answer the certified question by saying that there are no circumstances in which a judge is entitled to direct a jury to return a verdict of guilty.

[RandFan]

No Randfan - perhaps my brain has shutdown for the night but I havena clue! Been there done that. I've allready had to appologize and withdraw an argument today so my confidence is low. Get some sleep and we will tackle it later.

[gtc]

Interesting that the response to this refers to eco-terrorism and nukes. They painted a word on a chimney. I think it is a little hysterical to imagine that the next step is violence, but I am sure you have evidence to encourage this fear.

Eco-terrorism is a real fear. Here is just one example:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/28/indymedia_server_seizure_bristol/

[Zygar]

You're comparing

1) Proveable damage

and

2) Unknown and unscalable potential damage to the environment

The slippery slope here is that you can find an expert who will say that the cost to the environment for a single oil rig is so great that dropping a nuclear bomb on it is a positive on the cost/benefit analysis.

Therefore, you have validated anything and everything Greenpeace has done or will do to stop corporations from "ruining" the planet.

[WildCat]

[rule8]'n Greenpeace, undermining yet another just cause.
Where are those French agents when you need them?

[applecorped]

I respect jury decisions even if I disagree with them. As should you, too a degree.

[drkitten]

The slippery slope here is that you can find an expert who will say that the cost to the environment for a single oil rig is so great that dropping a nuclear bomb on it is a positive on the cost/benefit analysis.

You even admit you're indulging in fantasies and slippery slopes.

That's one reason that this is a jury-based system. While you may be able to find an "expert" who will say anything, the odds of being able to get the jury to believe him are pretty slim --- and get slimmer the further from common sense the expert's claims are.

[Gurdur]

Eco-terrorism is a real fear. ....


Eco-terrorism may well be a real fear, but that is not the question.

The question is, are the slippery-slope-sayers right to make the claim that this jury's decision means DOOM and eco-terrorists invading our homes and destroying our SUV's and being rude to our over-fed household pets?

And the answer is clearly "No". The jury's decision was on one particular, specific case, and does not in any way, either practically or legally, leave any door wide open for eco-terrorism or terrorism of any kind.

[Zygar]

You even admit you're indulging in fantasies and slippery slopes.

I never said anything about fantasies.

That's one reason that this is a jury-based system. While you may be able to find an "expert" who will say anything, the odds of being able to get the jury to believe him are pretty slim --- and get slimmer the further from common sense the expert's claims are.

As I said before, the jury has decided between known damage and Unknown and unscalable potential damage to the environment. This is not about what you can get an expert to say, it is about what you can get a jury to believe. This case, in my mind, proves that the answer is: Anything.

[Professor Yaffle]

not quite:


Section 5

(1) This section applies to any offence under section 1(1) above and any offence under section 2 or 3 above other than one involving a threat by the person charged to destroy or damage property in a way which he knows is likely to endanger the life of another or involving an intent by the person charged to use or cause or permit the use of something in his custody or under his control so to destroy or damage property.

(2) A person charged with an offence to which this section applies shall, whether or not he would be treated for the purposes of this Act as having a lawful excuse apart from this subsection, be treated for those purposes as having a lawful excuse--
(a) if at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence he believed that the person or persons whom he believed to be entitled to consent to the destruction of or damage to the property in question had so consented, or would have so consented to it if he or they had known of the destruction or damage and its circumstances; or

(b) if he destroyed or damaged or threatened to destroy or damage the property in question or, in the case of a charge of an offence under section 3 above, intended to use or cause or permit the use of something to destroy or damage it, in order to protect property belonging to himself or another or a right or interest in property which was or which he believed to be vested in himself or another, and at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence he believed--
(i) that the property, right or interest was in immediate need of protection; and

(ii) that the means of protection adopted or proposed to be adopted were or would be reasonable having regard to all the circumstances.
(3) For the purposes of this section it is immaterial whether a belief is justified or not if it is honestly held.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (2) above a right or interest in property includes any right or privilege in or over land, whether created by grant, licence or otherwise.

(5) This section shall not be construed as casting doubt on any defence recognised by law as a defence to criminal charges.

Just thought I would highlight this section, as I believe it is an important factor.

I think of this case as similar to the ones where military equipment was damaged in order to prevent their use in Iraq or exported to Indonesia:


After 4 1/2 hours of deliberation the Dublin jury of seven women and five men returned and gave their decision that all the accused should be acquitted as they honestly believed they were acting to save lives and property in Iraq and Ireland, and that their disarmament action was reasonable taking into consideration all the circumstances.

http://warontrial.com/


In 1996 a jury acquitted three women members of the peace group Swords to Ploughshares of criminal damage to a British Aerospace Hawk jet. At the consent of the British government, the jet was about to be delivered to the Indonesian government and was likely to play a role in human rights abuses against the people of East Timor. But just how far justice had been forgotten was revealed when this acquittal was universally reported in the media as a perverse verdict, as if the jury had wilfully made a mockery of justice by ignoring the law. Quite the contrary - the jury had faithfully applied the principle of 'lawful excuse', a tenet of common law also written into statute in s.3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967:
A person may use such force as is reasonable in the prevention of crime...The jury accepted the defence's argument that the women sincerely intended to prevent the crime of genocide against the population of East Timor. The damage had been the result of principled belief, done for no personal gain and without malice; this did not have the character of criminal activity.


http://www.flyingfish.org.uk/articles/excuse/lawful.htm

[richardm]

I am not a lawyer and neither did I hear all the evidence (neither have I read the whole thread so apologies if I'm rehashing here), but I'm far from clear why "Lawful Excuse" applies. The examples given are of the order of committing an offence to prevent a worse thing - breaking down a door to fight a fire, for example. It's not just an imminent problem, but it's direct and associated action.

Painting a chimney hardly seems to qualify - just straightforward vandalism as far as I can see. Funnily enough if they'd demolished the chimney I might see that they had a case ;)

Edit: And again in Prof. Yaffle's example above, by taking a hammer to the aircraft they effectively rendered them unable to fly, so it seems to fit better.

[Lonewulf]

I respect jury decisions even if I disagree with them. As should you, too a degree.But I do not respect the law in question, which leaves far too much room for lawful, yet questionable decisions.

You even admit you're indulging in fantasies and slippery slopes.

I'm going to ignore the "fantasies" part.

What about slippery slope? "Slippery slopes" are not always a fallacy. For instance, if I say "anything at all is justified if it's in the name of the environment", you could then ask, "Even murder?", even if I brought the argument up in the defense of a theft... because my argument left room enough. If I said "Well, no", then I would have to amend my argument.

The law in question says:

(3) For the purposes of this section it is immaterial whether a belief is justified or not if it is honestly held.

The things being compared are:

1) Concrete damage and funds in committing vandalism.

2) Not concrete and unsure damage thanks to global warming.

Global warming could hit very hard, and do billions of dollars in damages, kill hundreds of thousands of people, for instance. Doing millions of dollars of damage becomes justifiable. And this isn't done through government law, but instead by individuals who initially break the law, but are found "not guilty" because of this unconcrete potential damage in the minds of the suspect and the jury, who I do not assume to be experts on the subject in the first place.

I'm just not convinced that the "slippery slope" is a fallacy here, because the argument in question left plenty of room for further movement down the slope.

That's one reason that this is a jury-based system. While you may be able to find an "expert" who will say anything, the odds of being able to get the jury to believe him are pretty slim --- and get slimmer the further from common sense the expert's claims are.

Excuse me if I do not hold the common wisdom of juries in as high a regard and as infallible as you do.

[drkitten]

I never said anything about fantasies.

You did. You just didn't use that word.


This is not about what you can get an expert to say, it is about what you can get a jury to believe. This case, in my mind, proves that the answer is: Anything.

See? More paranoiac fantasies.

[applecorped]

But I do not respect the law in question, which leaves far too much room for lawful, yet questionable decisions.



Agreed.

[fuelair]

Where are those French agents when you need them?
We do agree on this!!!

[fuelair]

Can the company still sue the Gper's butts off?

I do hope so. (and I believe from all the evidence that global warming human caused is reality).

[Lonewulf]

See? More paranoiac fantasies.Your logic is impeccable. :rolleyes:

[ponderingturtle]

No I don't
They took their decision: they went to court and presented their case. That is what is supposed to happen and the fact the decision went one way rather than another was based on existing law. What is the problem?

Lets look at other cases where the jury decided they liked the defendant more than the law. I can think of all those people charged with killing people to prevent the spread of civil rights who got out due to such decisions. So the terrorits murders must have been legal no?

[ponderingturtle]

I was going to dig in and disagree with Fiona but Jury Nullification has it's place. Rightly or wrongly I would be apt to let a grieving father off for killing his childs murderer. In this case my bias towards Greenpeace caused me to immediatley label this particular verdict as wrong (which I still think it is but the jury has spoken, so be it).

So then can you really complain when someone gets off because the defendant was unlikeable to the jury? Say they where a minority group, like black or homosexual?

[ponderingturtle]

Global warming could hit very hard, and do billions of dollars in damages, kill hundreds of thousands of people, for instance. Doing millions of dollars of damage becomes justifiable. And this isn't done through government law, but instead by individuals who initially break the law, but are found "not guilty" because of this unconcrete potential damage in the minds of the suspect and the jury, who I do not assume to be experts on the subject in the first place.

So because something is a problem you gegt free reign to do what you want?

What is another few million in dammages anyway, lets have fun?

YOu are not linking that the dammages can in anyway prevent the loss.

I guess firebombing all cars might well be legal.

[Lonewulf]

So because something is a problem you gegt free reign to do what you want?

What is another few million in dammages anyway, lets have fun?

YOu are not linking that the dammages can in anyway prevent the loss.

I guess firebombing all cars might well be legal.First of all, it's spelled "damages".

Second of all, I said the opposite. I was making an argument against what you said. Pay attention, please, or at least take the minimal amount of effort to actually read all of what was said and not just taking a quick snippet in a rush to make a fool out of yourself.

[applecorped]

So then can you really complain when someone gets off because the defendant was unlikeable to the jury? Say they where a minority group, like black or homosexual?

:jaw-dropp

[Zygar]

You did. You just didn't use that word.

See? More paranoiac fantasies.

Liar.

[Fiona]

It seems very likely that the law will be changed following this verdict: there will certainly be a move to do that since I do not think the prosecution expected to lose.

And yes, of course a civil case can be brought against the defendants.

[Darat]

Lets look at other cases where the jury decided they liked the defendant more than the law.

...snip...

This was not a case of a jury nullification it was a jury accepting the a defence that is explicitly provided for in the criminal act they were charged under.

[cwalner]

It seems very likely that the law will be changed following this verdict: there will certainly be a move to do that since I do not think the prosecution expected to lose.

And yes, of course a civil case can be brought against the defendants.

Yes, Fiona.

I too am a bit upset about the verdict, but it was not due to any fault of the jury. They were following the law. In this case the law was poorly worded and too vague that it allowed it to be used to defend actions that probably were never intended to be covered by this law.

[RandFan]

That's one reason that this is a jury-based system. While you may be able to find an "expert" who will say anything, the odds of being able to get the jury to believe him are pretty slim --- and get slimmer the further from common sense the expert's claims are. Yet here we have this decision. The actions of this group have not led to any changes and there is no reason to suppose that they would. If I reasonably believe that my neighbor is going to kill me that doesn't justify my burning down his house.

Nothing about this case makes any sense.

There is no consensus that we must act now in a way that these bozos want us to.
There is no reason to believe that their actions would bring about change.
It fails no matter how you look at it.

[RandFan]

If I reasonably believe that my life is in imminent danger (I'm being attacked) I can kill my assailant.
I can't legally shoot a potential attacker in his sleep because my life isn't in imminent danger.
However, it's possible for me to shoot my neighbor in his sleep and be acquitted of murder if the jury doesn't like the neighbor.

Yes, it is possible. It's called jury nullification.

I'm not sure what is complicated about that but there it is.

BTW: See People v. Orenthal James Simpson for a good example.