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/

They’re socialists, they want to disrupt social order and the status quo. They see the pro Palestine:anti west propaganda as a good way to do this. They’re so thick that they think the people behind the pro Palestine manipulation are on their side because they are both anti west. If the pro Palestine pushers win, the first in the firing line will be the socialists. They play out of this has strong historical precedent.

I’ve just rewatched the video of the sledgehammer attack

If you think PC Kate Evans, Samuel Corner’s victim who’s spine he broke while she was just doing her job, is committing assault herself, I suggest you book an appointment with your GP to find out why you’re so thick.

Kate Evans was trying to arrest someone who was resisting arrest. You can see that given the criminal was pushing back against an attempt to ah scuff her. I’m afraid even if you say “Free Palestine”, if you’re committing a crime police will arrest you and if you resist, they’re gonna keep trying. It is NOT assault. And the sledgehammer attack is not justified and the ONLY explanation is jury corruption. Given the intimidating posters displayed round the court house, I’m not surprised that they felt scared but the ones who decided these credit a were innocent should be utterly ashamed

Because the defence are arguing the defendant acted in defence of the woman being restrained by the police officer he hit.

In no world do half decent people see that as reasonable force. Arresting someone is not assault and does not require smashing a sledgehammer into a woman’s back

You’re reassured that a man who assaulted a woman with a sledgehammer has got away with it (for now)? What’s reassuring about that?

And pray tell how is actual body am footage out of context? Tell us what we’re missing

What genocide?

I cannot believe the number of posters trying to defend this verdict.

Imagine how you'd feel I'd this was a loved one whose spine had been broken?

I'm pretty sure your opinion of not guilty would change. This woman was doing her job. They are the criminals, not her, so why has she been punished by being let down by the justice system?

It beggars belief, it really does!

Whatever your political leanings, and imho both sides have done things that they shouldn't have at times and in the past; no one deserves what happened to this policewoman, and no one should feel afraid to attend mass/functions, or be worried about carrying out their job.

How can it possibly be allowable to break a police officer's spine with a sledgehammer because you were 'defending' someone else who the police were trying to arrest?

That's the argument he made so the jury were required to consider it. We don't know whether any of them bought his argument at all. They could have all been split on GBH vs. GBH with intent. We will never know how those 12 people were split across the four possible verdicts.

They didn't find him not guilty, they returned no verdict. So the court has not said it's allowable.

There’s no show without Steptoe is there

He hasn't been found not guilty.

I didn't say the court said it was allowable, I was querying the argument being made that it was allowable.

They really aren’t wholly different

Renee Good's shooter was clearly the aggressor in that chain of events

Samuel Corner was clearly the aggressor

He had his gun drawn well before he could claim Good had shown any sign of aggression toward him

Corner had his sledgehammer raised whilst Kate Evans had her back to him and was trying to arrest another criminal

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 he

I thought you said the officer assaulted her?

Even so, it’s perfectly reasonable for an officer to restrain a criminal and doesn’t deserve “defence” in the form of extreme violence

Which is why I think that juries are so incompatible with the modern day and the over feeding of information. Back when newspapers and the TV/radio news show (sometimes only on once a day) were the only way to find things out. Now all you have to do is go into Twitter and see a hitch pitch of real and fake news

He's entitled to argue in his defence, even if it's bollocks.

It was someone on this thread.

She was using her hands. Which is basically the same as a sledgehammer apparently.

Well I find it quite telling that Jeremy Corbyn continues to defend antisemites again and again.

Many years ago there were reports of a trial collapsing because the jury used a ouija board to contact the dead victim and ask if the defendant did it.

The video of the protestor on the floor being handcuffed and going 'ow you're hurting me' is the most pathetic thing I've seen in a long time.

Oh you think you're all that with your sledgehammer and whip, ramraiding an office, smashing stuff up and throwing paint around. And then expect the police to nicely lead you away with a cup of tea and a blanket when you finally finish your smashing stuff up?

Solidarity to @Wellthisisdifficult and her DH.
I do worry that we will have no police offices soon. Between this and Andrew Barker (I think is his name) who was charged with murder when trying to stop a criminal killing his colleague, who the hell would want to be a police officer?! When half wits stand around applauding at officers being attacked and arrested for just doing their jobs

Another thing that made me concerned about the validity of trial by jury was watching the Round Tables on Traitors.

The thing is, jurors are also allowed to recognise that the alleged “belief” is absolute BS and wholly without merit. And they SHOULD in cases like this. blindly believing the words of criminals is not what juries should do

The Police Federation of England and Wales have written a letter to Zack Polanski asking him to reflect on his comments welcoming the verdict while totally ignoring the police officer who was seriously harmed while at work by these twats.

https://x.com/pfew_hq/status/2019406520681918695?s=61&t=U9XrcF693-JpMxeIueYG7g

Is there a source for this??

Indeed.

Someone can CLAIM reasonable force - hell, men who beat women do it constantly. The juries should decide if that’s a reasonable explanation. It’s very clearly evidenced in the case of Samuel Corner, it is not. Short of going back in time and watching the incident, I don’t know how much clearer it is that Corner was not justified in his attack.

I think many of the “fuck the police” crowd have misunderstood the assignment TBH.

I wholly support a public pushback against corrupt officers and police brutality. We should all be angry about these 2 things. But targeting perfectly reasonable officers just doing their jobs, and targeting them with violence, is not the answer, and makes me think they don’t want a better policing system, they just want to be violent