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/

So it wasn’t just one mad juror who doesn’t care about violence against women? Amazing. Well done those people.

They were discussing this on the radio this morning, and someone who had seen the whole video stated that the whole video provides more context than that that was released to the public. It's going to retrial. If the jury weren't able to reach a guilty verdict off of the evidence presented, it means that the prosecution did not bring about a strong enough case. It's not for the jury to read between the lines and make assumptions - they can only assess the evidence provided.
That being said, having watched some of the Jury trial experiments on TV recently, and heard a lot lately I do think our current system needs an extensive overhaul. Some people lack the ability to make decisions free from their personal opinions and beliefs, and those people do end up on Jurys which is wrong.

Open to interpretation. The jury I was on was led by a very outspoken chairwoman who explained to the others that they only needed to believe he may have done it and besides they wouldn't have arrested him if he wasn't guilty. I did point out that they really needed to prove that he was guilty but she convinced them that was only for murder.

The judge gave no guidance on the need for proof.

someone who had seen the whole video stated that the whole video provides more context than that that was released to the public. what was the context @JustMyView13 that makes that level of violence acceptable? Did she make him do it? Use fighting words? Was the fact she was a police officer and ‘he was scared’ an excuse?

Wow.

😬😬😬😬

That is not reassuring

They didn't elaborate because it can jeopardize the retrial.
To be clear, they also didn't say that it exonerates them nor did they say it proves guilt. They just said that what has been made publicly available does not provide the full context.

They just said that what has been made publicly available does not provide the full context.
This is very often the case but it doesn't stop people, as on here, making up stories about the motives of jurors.

The Times have raised the issue of jury tampering . They've reported that
posters were put up near the court "encouraging the jury to return a verdict according to their consciences"

Apparently a juror reported these during the trial

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/palestine-action-activists-not-guilty-0ptj986b5

archive link: https://archive.ph/syNLU

What full context justifies bludgeoning a woman who is on the floor with a sledgehammer to the extent that her spine is broken?

I can’t see it.

I'd like to post a question to those jurors -

If a burgler broke into your house, and if you got into a fight with one of the burglars and another burglar took a sledgehammer to your back to defend his mate, how would you feel? Would that be a defence regarding what they did to you, considering the fact that they broke in, and subjected you to danger?

Maybe women in police uniform deserve having their spines broken by a sledge hammer? Wrong sort of woman and all that?

They should have professionally trained jurors who can understand legal stuff, rather than Julie from the Co-op or Bert from up the road. I have done jury service years ago (burglary) and judge wanted a majority verdict. It was obvious that the perpetrator was guilty but one woman was convinced it wasnt him. The court usher told us nobody leaves until we have unanimous . That woman very quickly changed her vote 😉

It used to be that people who were legally trained were banned completely from acting as jurors in the fear that they would dominate everything.

Quite frankly anyone trying to defend this verdict is either
a.,is that gullible they lost any ability to think rationally so much so they are a danger to civilisation or
b. Hates society that much they have no right to be part of it

We need to stop the insidious spread of anti west propaganda in our schools, universities, government, media and institutions.

The verdict is frightening. I hope there is an appeal. The fact the jury passed a note to the judge asking about Gaza should have been enough to get them dismissed as it was clear at that point the trial was not fair.

TBH we need to crack down really hard on the ani western sentiment that is being allowed to run rife in this country. The country needs a massive readjustment. Instead of shit like “the countryside is too white” we need to make sure everyone who is in Britain abides by the traditions and values and rules. These include people not breaking a police officers back and being caught on camera but still let off.

What exactly was the defence? I just can't understand how you can argue it.

Might there be a retrial, since no verdict was reached?

Then you are badly informed on the point of trial by jury, a jury of your equals. People are not all thick and ignorant and are capable of devining truth from hearsay etc. Trial by jury - guaranteed by Magna Carta - is one of the pillars of a democratic society. Juries are less open to being bribed, they are less open to political influence. They are a safeguard for ordinary people who find themselves in court on serious charges. They are also completely random groups of people with no collective axe to grind. Better one guilty person goes free than that anyone is found guilty who is innocent, I think.

It feels like judicial outcomes depend on the political views of the jury and the judges. This will make certain parts of the country have more crime than others.

When it took 13 months to go through court for a civil action against my last tenant I was told by the solicitor that the local judges are generally prejudiced against landlords. It did make me think insurance companies must notice this and increase premiums for landlords in that area and that additionally it is very risky/unattractive to let property there when courts are so slow and take decisions you cant argue against for months as you wait for the next hearing.

Had that group faced a jury in say Dorset rather than Woolwich there might have been a different outcome.

There are dozens of countries around the world which do not use jury trials and are perfectly democratic.

It was a massive step forward 800 years ago. That doesn't mean it's the system we need to use today.

At the very least we could introduce some basic safeguards like requiring the jury to produce a report explaining their reasoning.

Having sat on a jury (Scotland) I agree it shouldn't be up to the public.
That decision by the jury in this case we're talking about is incomprehensible 🤷🏻‍♀️
But we have no clue what they were given as evidence or how they were directed by the judge either.

There are massive flaws in the jury trial system. The biggest for me was not understanding the ins and outs of the medical evidence. 3 days of two highly respected coroners, each disputing the others findings, all from autopsy notes as neither had carried it out themselves 😳
Im not a stupid person, I wasn't the brightest in that room either. But most of us admitted we didn't understand the evidence. & as two experts are arguing, who are we to decide 🤔 🙄

Because you’re missing the point of the Justice system. It is on the prosecution to prove guilt. We cannot know what context is missing because it’s not been released. We also cannot know whether that would impact our own views once shown. In this case, the prosecution have been unable to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Blame them. That’s why it’s going to a retrial. We could try to assume what was missing until we’re blue in the face, but that merely serves to jeopardise the retrial.

I have never heard from anyone who has been on a jury who doesn’t have a similar story involving either complete idiots, domineering jurors, uninterested jurors, etc.

Without seeing the evidence, we dont know how badly the officer was assaulting the woman. It's interesting that the cctv had been "lost". I don't trust the police as far as I can throw them, so im sure there's more to this than the mainstream media have shown.

I am perfectly aware of the point of trial by jury, having been in court many a time over the years. I am also aware of how stupid many people are having worked with the public for a long, long time.
For a case to even get to trial, the evidence needs to be nailed on for CPS to proceed these days as court time is so precious. I despair at this verdict and would welcome an overhaul of the judiciary system.

The law recognises the concept of self-defence, it also recognises you are permitted to defend someone else if you genuinely believe they are under threat of harm.

The fact this was captured on video is neither here nor there, because the fact isn't in debate. What is evidently the issue is the jury were not convinced of the charge, because there was a claim by the defence that the defendant acted only because they genuinely believed someone else was being harmed and went to their defence.

Too many people can't seem to grasp that just because you hit someone with a hammer and break their spine, and its caught on video, it does not automatically follow that you have committed a crime and will go to prison just because it's on video.

Also an astonishing number of people who, yet again, are desperate to hurl the UK even further into the clutches of despotism by doing away with Jury trial. What happens once it's both the State you are defending yourself from, and the State judging you?

Agreed.

Absolutely shocking.

Those jurors should be ashamed that poor woman's life is destroyed. There is video evidence and the verdict returned is non guilty on all counts.

They caused 1m in damages and fractured someone's spine with a hammer.

How???

Its just disgraceful.