So now we see the legal strategy:
First: Label the bikers as aggressive. Even without any concrete evidence of aggression, the article is already referring to bikers as the "bad guys". This is key. "Guys" is key. The accused will never identify bikers as potentially including children, women, or seniors, as these comprise the class of people that society sees as "worthy victims". Instead, they seek to twist and manipulate images once again, that project their own personal fear onto the target of their scorn: the demons of the woods: aggressive bikers. In fact, these bikers need to be shown as reckless persons that invite harm on themselves. Her defence may likely emphasize this, and claim the barriers only pose hazards because of the behaviour of the targets. This strategy is meant to debase bikers, and show that they neither deserve the protection of the law, nor the same standard of regard as we ascribe to regular citizens…you know like sweet people that cry about stuff.
Second: BE THE VICTIM. She is crying, distraught, and her health is suffering. The poor woman. All of this because of a misunderstanding, and those devil-bikers. She was only trying to PROTECT herself and her precious dogs. If she doesn't take these measures, harm will surely come. She is compelled to use this trail and only this trail, and she must render it safe for WORTHY VICTIMS: in this case emotionally fragile seniors and their pets (hmmmm off leash perhaps?).
Third: Be the reasonable person. Note here that there is no argument against the actus reus (the physical act of the crime). She knows she cannot argue this was not her that laid the logs. She instead will argue her criminal intent (mens rea) was lacking. In fact, she will claim that a reasonable person would not have viewed her actions as likely to cause harm to another person, and that her actions actually fall short of the standard applied here of a reasonable person. She will emphasize her own calm and peaceful nature, and use the unreasonable and aggressive actions of a "few idiots" as the counterpoint to the new persona she creates. Her entire legal strategy hinges upon her being viewed as a reasonable person, and the argument that her actions should not have been expected to result in harm.
Of course, one may ask what reasonable person gets up morning after morning to lay traps in the same place, especially given her apparent extensive experience with bikers. As the prosecutor I might ask, might a reasonable person who apparently lives in fear of these downhill speed demons not reasonably foresee that her actions could result in harm to them? The prosecutor might note that self-defense should only apply when there is an immediate threat to self. In this case, we have premeditated and repeated action perpetrated to exert control over a trail that she full well knows is frequented by bikers. A truly scared person would simply avoid the trail, as the barriers are constantly removed, so they provide little protection.
No your honour, I submit the accused is indeed reasonable (and of a sound mind), but that her actions were intended specifically to act as a deterrent of peril and danger to deter riders from their regular use of the trail under the threat of harm. In this sense, any reasonable person in her position would have taken other measures to protect herself from (real or imagined) harm, and that not only would a reasonable person foresee the risk of harm, but it is that exact threat of harm that she attempted to wield as a weapon to lay claim to the public lands.
