|
|
|
What reason did the court give for the acquittal? Thanks
weber |
Tue 25.Sep.2007 - 18:03 | #
|
|
Weber, I don't know exactly.
The newspaper reported something vaguely that the judge did not follow the prosecution in that the student was just vandalizing the art work. Because the judge ruled that the student did it with a clear purpose in mind. But the judge also criticized the student for taking the law in his own hands (as many think in the Netherlands everything is forbidden unless explicitly allowed). The judge ruled that the student should have used the available legal means to achieve his goal (with which the judge apparently agrees).
Ferdy |
Homepage |
Tue 25.Sep.2007 - 21:43 | #
|
|
Commenting by HaloScan
|