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'm sure all the people who believe this defence of acting on instinct in the heat of the moment also accept this as a valid defence for the ICE officer who shot Renee Good.

Ah, now it makes a bit more sense. The set that Franck Magennis works at.

The barrister who told a woman who had family members die in the 7 October Hamas attacks that she was a “Zionist wretch” and tweeted as well that “we’re gonna fucking destroy” an Israeli arms manufacturer.

In the wake of Franck Magennis announcing his work for Hamas, his set issued a statement saying that he was working in an individual capacity and “this in no way indicates that Garden Court Chambers supports his client”.

Despite them distancing themselves from this barrister, a pattern emerges.

Well Jeremy Corbyn is pleased with the verdict. Says it all.

Good point @Underthinker ! Fits perfectly with 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. as a pro police violence supporter has posted here. The ICE agent was defending himself! He was acting with ‘moral courage’…

Now it’s clear why the Home Secretary designated Palestine Action a terrorist group. Not that I needed any convincing. These people are scum and a danger to Jewish people in our society; a danger to anyone who doesn’t bow down to Islamism.

I feel absolute despair at what is happening. Anyone who claims we are not being adversely affected needs to think again.

I was wavering over doing away with trial by jury. Now I’m convinced we must, particularly if nullification is a real risk. This jury wilfully ignored the law. I want to lock them up myself.

The prosecution may go for a retrial. The man is still on remand.

Its an absurd, abhorrent, and dangerous outcome as it stands.

I hope they do. This man is violent and should be locked up.

@ThePoshUns Quel surprise!

Pro police violence supporter 😂

Have a word with yourself.

For a start, the injured party in this instance is a policewoman.

Renee Good's shooter was clearly the aggressor in that chain of events, so it's an order of magnitude more difficult to lend any credence of a claim of defence. He had his gun drawn well before he could claim Good had shown any sign of aggression toward him, and even then, you still have the matter of convincing that Good driving off in the other direction was sufficient to cause him to believe he was at risk of harm

The two circumstances are wholly different, and just because one claim of self-defence is likely without foundation, that says nothing whatsoever about the legitimacy of any others.

In this case, the person claimed to be at risk of harm was lying on the floor screaming her head off, underneath a police officer trying to restrain her. The question is then, was the man who then acted on her behalf reasonable to conclude that she was indeed being harmed. Evidently the jury had some concerns, otherwise they'd have simply disregarded the defence.

Not that Good's shooter ever will stand trial, but IMO any jury could look at that footage and see that Good was not the aggressor. The same can't be said about the footage of the scuffle on the floor presented at this trial.

But the thing is, it’s almost impossible to have a fair trial now. This trial was decided by the anti western propaganda allowed to spread in this country long before it got to trial. So if we want to retain jury trials we need serious questions about their impartiality and whether random allocation is effective

I would hope the jury were unbiased. That's all you can do in any jury trial unless you have concrete proof that they have an axe to grind eg posts on social media, belonging to certain political groups or organisations.

And of course they shouldn't be ignoring evidence , unless directed to do so by the judge. Or dismissing it without consideration. But they have to consider it in conjunction with other evidence that is presented.

I'm sure you're right, it can't possibly be some sort of confirmation bias justifying already held beliefs.
Poor Samuel was just a grown-arse, educated man breaking into a secure site with a sledgehammer and a fuck-off great big digger with a bunch of over-excited mates for a political cause. How could he have foreseen it would all go Pete Tong?

Self-defence does absolutely NOT APPLY in these circumstances!!! The policewoman was turned away from the perpetrator on the floor when he attacked her from behind. IT IS NOT SELF-DEFENCE and cannot be interpreted as such. The policewoman was restraining a burglar (not the perpetrator) in the lawful execution of her duty and the perpetrator was absolutely NOT in fear for their safety when he attacked her from behind.

But the thing is, it’s almost impossible to have a fair trial now

Hyperbole.

The vast majority of jury trials are perfectly fair and reach perfectly valid conclusions.

The fact there are outliers where the outcome is questionable in no way excuses throwing the entire thing in the bin only to replace it with god knows what.

Anyone supporting this verdict is basically saying if a police officer uses any level of restraint to apprehend an offender their mate can hit them with a sledgehammer to get them off their mate. Just think about that for a second. Because I will be thinking about that every second of my DHs next shift. Anyone backing this verdict is at fault if anything happens to my DH or his colleagues. The anti police propaganda in here and across SM is out of control. This verdict is dangerous on every even and cannot be allowed to stand.

No it’s not, SM, the media means hardly any trial comes to court without a high possibility of the jury having been steady swayed. This case was particularly unsuitable to be tried by jury.

I can only assume those defending the verdict are trolls or themselves violent criminals. It's completely incomprehensible and indefensible.

Thank you

Was the police officer using anything disproportionate to restrain the protester? I find the chaotic video very hard to decipher.

From my perspective, unless the police officer was physically attacking the protester with a weapon, I can't really see how use of a sledgehammer is justified as "defence" or trying to save someone else.

I just think they are gullible, stupid or find an advantage in leaving police officers afraid to do their job. It’s horrifying these people walk amongst us.

This, is that what you’re saying @XDownwiththissortofthingX ?

ah well my mate was struggling with the police officer trying to arrest him, and was shouting out, of course I was justified in kicking the head of the police officer!! I was worried for my poor friend!!

And whether or not trial by jury is appropriate in this world of social media bubbles saturated with alternative realities.

hardly any trial comes to court without a high possibility of the jury having been steady swayed

This is just yet more hyperbolic nonsense.

The vast majority of jury trials pass off unreported with little to nobody other than those present even aware they are taking place.

Jeremy Corbyn and Zach Polanski are pleased with the verdict

I doubt that either of them are saying this because of the details of the law.

I genuinely want to know what goes on in these people's heads. Note - I am not accusing either of them of being violent criminals themselves.

So agree @Wellthisisdifficult your DH and his colleagues must really be wondering where they stand now 😥

So how do you know the verdicts in those unreported trials are fair and sensible?!

Juries can decide on a verdict based on literally anything - prejudicial beliefs, flipping a coin, like/dislike of attorneys or witnesses. No one can challenge their reasoning and it's an absolutely arbitrary system.