Break a woman’s spine with a sledge hammer on video and….

[noblegiraffe]

Despite you obviously doing it and the video being available for everyone to watch, the jury will be unable to reach a verdict as to whether you did it or not.

Whatever your opinion on Palestine, this should be absolutely shocking. That poor woman was just doing her job.

Honestly, when they talk about getting rid of trial by jury, this sort of thing goes a long way to convincing me that it’ll be no loss.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/uk-jury-finds-pro-palestinian-activists-who-stormed-elbit-factory-not-guilty/amp/

I've sat on a jury and I would NEVER want to put my faith in trial by jury. Half the jury could barely string a sentence together and just went along with what the person next to them was saying

Don't be silly, how do you expect police to treat people swinging around sledgehammers when trying to arrest them in the middle of committing a crime?

I mean, you're acting like this was an unprovoked attack on innocent civilians doing nothing at all. Which is utterly batshit.

Police need to have powers to be able to arrest criminals even if they resist arrest or pose a threat.

Exactly when/where has this happened? Never seen it on a pro Pals march myself.

Most other European countries don't have juries for court cases. Are you saying that there are no fair trials in Germany, Italy, Sweden etc? Those like France that reserve jury trials for the most serious offences have lay jurors sitting with professional judges to decide both guilt and sentencing.

AFAIK only Spain & Ireland have classic jury trials similar to those in UK.

Police often turn a blind eye to extreme antisemitism in marches and instead focus on Jews being provocative by wearing religious jewellery

I'm aware of that having participated in Stop The Hate demos where we were/are kettled 'for our own safety', 🙄

"Are you saying that there are no fair trials in Germany, Italy, Sweden etc?"

No, because I was talking about our justice system. What other countries do/don't do wasn't relevant to my post.

I think the point is that juries aren’t required for a fair trial. That translates to all countries, we aren’t so different from Germany that we need a completely different justice system.

^This.
I think that people who are so wedded to jury trials assume that it's the norm everywhere. It is for the UK, US & the rest of the Anglosphere but most democracies get along perfectly well without them.

Why should the jury explain their reasoning? It won't change the verdict for them to say why they got there. Besides, the main reason many won't convict is 'reasonable doubt' and the criterion for the jury deciding on a guilty verdict is that an ordinary person would convict because the verdict is 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
Democracy rests on the participation of citizens in making decisions about the country. One of the things a citizen must be prepared to do is to be a juror and judge his or her peers in criminal cases. If citizens are not doing this duty by their fellows then it is quite questionable what democracy means - it's not just having everyone vote in elections.
Trials by magistrates and judges sitting without a jury may produce more of the guilty verdicts a lot of posters want, but those verdicts will be less safe and a part of citizens' duty will have been usurped in favour of the establishment - in this country that is unacceptable. Other countries can do as they like.
NB List of countries that are democracies (not republics - different rules) who do not have trial by jury in any form.
And that massive step 800 years ago to trust ordinary people to make judgements in criminal cases remains a great step forward.

Yeah, I can see that this is one that juries would really agonise over.

In addition, i don't think the woman who was assaulted was Jewish or Israeli. She was a policewoman doing her job.
There is enough anti-Semitism and physical attacks on Jewish people. And of course that should be talked about. However, I don't think there's any need to say that.an act of violence where (I think) none of the people involved were Jewish (and where no-one involved thought anyone else was Jewish) is also an example of violence against Jewish people. It muddies the waters unnecessarily in lots of ways.

I also think, based on what I saw, that it should have been a guilty verdict. But it's also true the Jury saw aonger video. And that it's on the prosecution to prove the case which they clearly didn't. I don't think it's a reason to do away with Jury trials.

I do think it sucks to be the police in situations like this. I have family who are police officers and they are good people trying to do a good job. Not all police officers are and I have problems with some aspects of policing, but broadly speaking they aren't all footsoldiers of fascism. They are human beings trying to do a decent job.

I am more annoyed at Zack Polanski's attitude than the jurors basically (and I was starting to like him too). I don't think it's a very helpful stance for him to take regardless of his views on Israel/Palestine more generally. Whatever you think about that, police officers deserve not to be attacked whether they are responding to a breakin at a Mosque or a Synagogue or Elbit Systems or a local cafe. It shouldn't have any bearing on the issue.

I would have thought this thread would have been taken down.

It could be sub judiciary to the re arrest, which would be terrible for the victims.

Ooh good point that hadn't occurred to me when I commented

Who do you think is entitled to ask for a retrial? If found not guilty, the accused can then only be tried again for the same crime if significant new evidence comes to light that was not available at the time of the original trial. This is the principle of double jeapardy.

My Aunty was involved in a murder trial many years ago. She told after the trial she believed the person accused was guilty as did 4 other people. One loud man shouted them down in discussions. The judge said you must give unanimous decision. They kept deliberating but 2 people who thought the man was guilty said they would change to insure because they wanted to go home. After that the other jurors pressured my Aunt and another lady to change their opinion, so they could all go home, to not sure then the person got acquitted as reasonable doubt. She always says she regretted being pressured but she was young at the time.

He wasn’t found not guilty, the jury was unable to reach a verdict.

Yes. I've been surprised at how many are keen to call 'victory' when it isnt over.

Oh ok, I got hold of the wrong end of the stick. So if the jury was deadlocked wouldn’t they be dismissed and there automatically be a retrial?

The CPS have just announced that they are seeking to have a retrial:

"The CPS will seek a retrial in the Elbit Systems case, we indicated to the court on Wednesday. We will confrim the indictment at a hearing on Feb 18."

https://x.com/CPSUK/status/2020067533353541825

Good.

It's not automatic to have a retrial because the jury were deadlocked.

We are quite different. Are you saying British history isn't that different from German history? If so, you're not making friends with any historian anytime soon 😂

I’m not talking about history I’m talking about our culture.
Like us, Germany are a progressive western democracy. They also have 8x the rape conviction rate that we do.
It would be fine to have a justice system that matches theirs.