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/

DH just read this out to me! Said they have got off.. The perpetrators defence lawyer said they weren't intending to use the sledge hammers as weapons, merely to gain access to the building. Oh well, that's alright then 🤬

I'm not trying to justify anything.

But I will say that jurors are supposed to put their personal prejudices and political views aside and look at evidence in an unbiased manner.

From what you have posted here do you think you really think you would be able to do that? Because if you took your strong views into the jury room could you have given an unprejudiced verdict?

Read my post above. It doesn't follow that it being on video is enough to guarantee a GBH conviction.

It isn't evidence of motivation, and while there is GBH with intent, and also GBH without premeditation, even the second is not going to be a guaranteed conviction just because it's captured on video, because you can still do something to someone which would otherwise constitute an assault or GBH if you did so in belief you were acting in defence, and walk away free.

Seems the summary of this thread is that (checks) about 80% of the public have no clue how the justice system works which they more than make up for in how loud they are about their ignorance. It's clear some people don't grasp what a trial is for.

A starting point is that juries cannot be forced to return the "right" verdict. If you like that sort of system, then North Korea has nice weather.

Odd verdicts like this are the price we pay for not having government-approved verdicts.

I think if CCTV was lost/deleted probably plays in favour to the protestors.

I haven’t seen the full video nor have we seen the evidence that was presented to the jury so we have no idea what the jury's verdict was based on - we have only seen what has been released to the media.

However from what I have seen it is clear the police officer was struck with a sledge hammer, so I don’t see what is defensible about that, surely if it was self defence or defence of another a sledgehammer is not a proportionate response. The protestors were not being attacked with an equivalent weapon.

Also, I am confused have they not been convicted also for the actual break in at all? If not that is ridiculous, I don’t agree with weapons sales to Israel, but I do know causing such damage to a building is still illegal no matter the cause.

Well you weren't in the court, so of course you can't see/hear what they saw/heard.

If it was a jury issue, there will be a retrial.

I usually want to blame slimy lawyers. Am I unreasonable?

@Wellthisisdifficult please thank your partner for serving. I know I’m just some random person but my close friends DS is a police office I have known him since he was 5 years old and have heard first hand how thankless it is.

That jury should be ashamed of themselves.

are we meant to believe this jury is “unbiased”?
so what people are saying is, even if there is evidence, the jury can just say “Naah don’t believe it” and it’s dismissed?

wonder if the jury for the Andrew cases can just discount things?
”yeah there’s photos and emails, but I just don’t see any intent”

@EmeraldRoulette

As you say, if it's not in dispute that he attacked her with his sledgehammer, then why wouldn't it be GBH? Genuinely confused

Because the defence are arguing the defendant acted in defence of the woman being restrained by the police officer he hit. Defence is supposed to be proportional, so it's still entirely possible he'll be convicted of some sort of offence for a disproportionate response, but the right to defence gives you the right to twat someone with a sledgehammer if you believe that's a proportionate means to defend yourself or a third party.

You can kill people in self-defence, including on video, and you won't be convicted of a murder/manslaughter just because you were caught defending yourself on video. This is no different, and what the real question is, is not what happened, but what motivated it and what the defendant believed he was trying to achieve.

It's well worth reading the 'route to verdict' that the jury were asked to consider. It's not nearly as simple as many seem to think:

https://realmedia.press/filton-case-route-to-verdict-1/

The jury may have been biased. Equally they may have been split between alternative charges. We will never know.

@Driftingawaynow - well. Breaking a policewoman’s spine is moral courage?

Reassured by these verdicts. The jury had ALL the evidence not edited biased highlights and understood the context.
The individual who is accused of the assault ...was not released and may be retried.
Anyone who advocates for abandoning trial by a jury of your peers is deeply suspect in my view

Basically nearly all crimes have to have an actus reus - in this case smashing a sledgehammer into the spine of a poor police woman just doing her job and a mens rea, in the case of gbh and intent to cause harm, which I don’t see how anyone could say they didn’t (although apparently i heard something about the poor little love swinging the sledge hammer round didn’t mean to hurt anyone and it was all a bit dusty in there so couldn’t see anyone.

Even if these two things exist then there are defences, like reasonable force protecting yourself or others. I’ve heard that the blinded sledgehammer wielding man could just see through the dust enough to ascertain that the police offficer on the floor trying to arrest his friend (who didn’t look exactly cooperative on film) needed to be got off his friend and smashing a sledgehammer into the policewoman’s spine was reasonable force to do so.

That seems to be the summary I’ve heard in the media

Dreadful. I cannot imagine how they could reach anything other than Guilty on all counts.

All I can think is that their political views or prejudices won out over doing the right thing.

There should definitely be a retrial, and the not guilty verdicts should be declared void.

So the Labour Government?

What a surprise, the defendants were represented by Garden Court Chambers.

True, good point.

Yes.

Although it's far from the first time, or the only time, a Labour Government has proposed something fundamentally at odds with longstanding civil rights or legal precepts, and the short-sighted public have unthinkingly lapped it up.

That is horrific! Surely this needs a new trial? What was the judge doing not directing the jury

'I can see that this chat is full of pro Israeli sup nutters' @Driftingawaynow Makes a change from the countless pro Pal 'nutters' on the CITME board and elsewhere.

You want to vet jurors for their support or not of genocide? Wow 1984 stuff...I may have transposed those numbers

Quite a terrifying world you envision

That video is horrific. How can that police officer return to work after that. Poor woman could have been killed.

Do some posters here believe that breaking the policewoman’s spine was justifiable and should receive no consequences?