• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -18
    edit-2
    18 days ago

    You see your honour, he was wearning a bulletproof vest, so me shooting him totally wasn’t attempted murder, he was save all along!

    • @FooBarrington
      link
      8
      edit-2
      18 days ago

      More like “you see your honor, he was behind a 10-foot-thick wall of lead, so me shooting him totally wasn’t attempted murder, he was safe all along!”

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        -9
        edit-2
        18 days ago

        “The painting itself was unharmed, but the 17th-century frame sustained some damage after the soup acted as paint stripper on the delicate surface.”

        So climate activists’ official position is to target the frames of these paintings, as they see them as important enough to piss people off but not important enough to preserve?

        Time to lock originals away from the public forever.

        • @mmcintyre
          link
          418 days ago

          Way to solve one of the most pressing issues of our day. Just great work, man. The planet really isn’t that important when compared to some 17th century art. That’s where we really need to focus our preservation and conservation efforts!

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            018 days ago

            That’s where we’re going to focus the problem solving, when that’s how you choose to stir shit up. We’re going to focus on preventing climate activists from destroying shit, and we’re going to talk about how to punish them.

        • @FooBarrington
          link
          1318 days ago

          Oh well, we all know that honourable judges always make morally good decisions, don’t we?

          • TheTechnician27
            link
            English
            818 days ago

            Yes exactly! The judiciary is infallible and so that’s exactly why the SCOTUS is the least fallible institution there is.