Teenager drop-kicked for saying you need female genitals to be a woman

[youkiddingme]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8965625/London-transgender-women-drop-kicked-stamped-19-year-old.html

Supposedly being celebrated by TRAs

www.trendsmap.com/twitter/tweet/1330041982681571329

@DrDavidBanner

They were more likely to break their own feet than do any serious damage.

In those stilletos? I don't think so.

If you watch the video if looks like they were barefoot. Also its impossible to tell whether they kicked him in the head or not. There's no reference to him being kicked in the head in the reports of the trial I've seen.

@LangClegsInSpace

Presumably prosecuted as public order offence because victim refused to give a statement.

There was plenty of other evidence that an assault took place - video, hospital records and a whole bunch of witnesses.

Yeah but no key witness to give evidence about how they attacked him. It’s easier to get a conviction for public order so I think that’s what they did. Otherwise the result could be even more infuriating and they could have been acquitted.

@LangClegsInSpace

If we adopt a policy of ‘no victim blaming ever’ we would have to apply that to female violence against male victims too. And provocation only excuses or explains behaviour, it doesn’t justify it.

Which is why provocation as a mitigating factor is not the same as victim blaming. The judge went far beyond that with his comments.

He referred to 'the alleged victim' and 'the so-called victim' and said if it wasn't for the (alleged) victim there wouldn't have been a crime. That is victim blaming.

Yes I take that point but if we get all legalistic, they hadn’t been convicted of assault, only a public order offence, which may be why he used the terminology he did. Imo, judges tread a fine line to try to avoid people appealing their judgments. Sometimes it comes across as favouring the defendant but often it’s an attempt to make it appeal-proof and avoid any accusations that the judge was biased.

It’s easier to get a conviction for public order so I think that’s what they did.

Is it really? When there is so much clear evidence of assault? Why do you think that? CPS guidance says in most cases both should be prosecuted if the crime meets the threshold.

Having explained away the decision to prosecute for a public order offence you next explain away the judge's disgusting victim blaming comments because it was a public order offence so it doesn't need a victim.

If the offence doesn't need a victim then the judge has no need to refer to an 'alleged victim' or a 'so-called victim'. The judge said, I accept that had it not been for the alleged victim in this case there probably wouldn't have been an incident. so clearly the fact that there was a victim is central to this crime. So how can it not be an assault?

How can you watch that video and not recognise that an assault is taking place? How can you say there is 'no key witness to give evidence about how they attacked him' when a witness made that video showing exactly how they attacked him and that video was used as evidence?

We can argue about whether this met the threshold for ABH and we can argue about various aggravating and mitigating factors but it's ridiculous to suggest they would have been found not guilty of assault.

Yes, it’s easier to secure a conviction for a less serious offence than to push for a more serious one where you have a victim who will not give a statement and will not cooperate with the investigation. Although technically it is possible to convict in the absence of the victim giving evidence, in reality it does weaken the case.

My point is that the term alleged tends to be used to describe a victim until the defendant has been found guilty. Otherwise it’s seen to undermine the presumption of innocence. Here the defendants were never tried for assault so the assault itself was not something that had been proven in court and I suspect that’s why the word ‘alleged’ was used rather than some speculation that the judge was biased in favour of the defendants.

Anyway, as I said I have sympathy for neither party here. I would also have prosecuted the defendants for a more serious crime but I suspect the reason this didn’t happen was due to lack of cooperation by the victim. A conviction for something less serious is better than an acquittal. And it saves issues with what prison they’d go to too.

My concern was just that several posters seemed to be saying that provocation is irrelevant- there’s never an excuse for violence. I would argue that in some cases there is and have outlined the type of cases where I think that would apply.