He hasn't that's the other **** who twatted the policewoman in the face, as he didn't notice the uniform just thought it was a woman he was smacking full on in self defence standard practise I suppose.The jury also saw the policeman on video get stompy stompy on an unconscious man’s head
If I was to guess I’d say this had an impact on them not being able to say the policeman wasn’t overly aggressive as the defence claimed
You do know he’s already been found guilty of attacking the other 2 police officers?
Just not colonel stomper
To the right, maybe? Because somehow people think a far-right or populist right party will serve them better and have a magic wand to change it in a second.
Look at the posts on this thread already with the comments about 'joke of a country' and how 'if it was white folk...', no objectivity in it, its all emotional parroting and that's fine. But I think that a lot of people are getting played on the right and the left. We'll all suffer as a result, though.
What the fucks Ethnicity got to do with a pair of cunts one who blatantly punched a young woman full on in the face and his brother who punched fuck out of a copper and walked away scot free, I treat people as I find them, but I won't make excuses for cunts because they're a different colour to me.It's been a shocking read, this thread.
Most of these posters know someone of a different ethnicity and are, most likely, great to their faces.
You can lose faith in Humanity when you can see it sliding away, not just in this thread, but in others as well and some stand by and, selectively, do nothing when they have the power to.
What the fucks Ethnicity got to do with a pair of cunts one who blatantly punched a young woman full on in the face and his brother who punched fuck out of a copper and walked away scot free, I treat people as I find them, but I won't make excuses for cunts because they're a different colour to me.
To the people who think they got away with it because of being Pakistani/Muslim etc why did big nose get found guilty of his attacks on the other three victims?
I don’t think any of that counts when you’re being placed under arrestAh. No responses to drone. To be expected from the right wingers on here when their narrative is fucked by a logical question!
Who could see that coming...?
Anyway, UK law allows the claim of self-defence "in the defence of another". So you can step in and strike someone to defend your sibling, but the force you use must be "necessary and reasonable" in the circumstances.
The right to use force in the defence of another is established in both Common Law and statute (primarily the Criminal Law Act 1967 and Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008).
It happens in two parts when in a court of law:
The Subjective Test:
Did you genuinely believe force was necessary to protect your sibling from an imminent attack? (Even if your belief turned out to be mistaken, it can still be used as a defence, as long as it was honestly held).
The Objective Test:
Was the level of force you used reasonable and proportionate to the threat?
You're allowed to use the minimum force needed to stop the threat and if the attacker has a weapon, striking them might be reasonable.
"If the person attacking your sibling is a police officer executing their duties unlawfully (e.g., an unprovoked or brutal assault), the same self-defence laws apply. However, if the police officer is carrying out a lawful arrest or action, intervening with physical force to stop them could result in you being charged with a crime such as obstructing or assaulting a police officer in the execution of their duty."
So, if the accused has been found 'not guilty', it will have been contextualised about provocation to trigger the 'self-defence' clause.
Finally, the law makes allowances for the heat of the moment. The courts recognise that when acting instinctively in a moment of unexpected anguish, you cannot be expected to measure your defensive action with perfect precision.
All these factors would have come into play over anyone's perceived ethnicity for the jury under instruction from the judge.
I don’t think any of that counts when you’re being placed under arrest
They were attacking ARMED officers. The police have seconds to react. They dont have time to wait for a trial.
Police kill VERY few people in this country.and that's when their own lives are in danger.
The two who escaped justice for this blatant attack, can count themselves VERY lucky.
These cunts were guilty, the footage alone shows that, it doesn’t need left or right wing bias, it needed honest jurors not the fuckers who were at both trials.So your telling me two juries were just too woke to look at all the evidence and convict?
Should we just have juries of 'folk' who are 'turning' to get the verdicts you want?
Maybe we'll soon get the parties in power you want and we can take away any of this lefty trial by jury nonsense altogether
I wouldn’t know but I reckon 3 people in uniform after you’ve just assaulted someone is a bit of a giveawayDo you know if the arrest was declared? Police presence doesn't equate to arrest.
Context matters.
These cunts were guilty, the footage alone shows that, it doesn’t need left or right wing bias, it needed honest jurors not the fuckers who were at both trials.
Perhaps in cases like this we need a Judge (or judges)!to be the sole arbiter of the case, just like they’ve done in Northern Ireland in the past whereby due to the make up of the juries they’d never reach an agreement.
It would be interesting to hear why these two juries couldn’t agree on this case, I’m guessing there’s some anti police bias or other reason for bias against the victims and leniency for the accused.
I wish these cunts would have committed this crime in other countries, they would either be dead or in prison now.
I wouldn’t know but I reckon 3 people in uniform after you’ve just assaulted someone is a bit of a giveaway
Palmer v R [1971] AC 814 is the principal case in relation to what constitutes reasonable self defence. From Lord Morris’ judgment:Ah. No responses to drone. To be expected from the right wingers on here when their narrative is fucked by a logical question!
Who could see that coming...?
Anyway, UK law allows the claim of self-defence "in the defence of another". So you can step in and strike someone to defend your sibling, but the force you use must be "necessary and reasonable" in the circumstances.
The right to use force in the defence of another is established in both Common Law and statute (primarily the Criminal Law Act 1967 and Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008).
It happens in two parts when in a court of law:
The Subjective Test:
Did you genuinely believe force was necessary to protect your sibling from an imminent attack? (Even if your belief turned out to be mistaken, it can still be used as a defence, as long as it was honestly held).
The Objective Test:
Was the level of force you used reasonable and proportionate to the threat?
You're allowed to use the minimum force needed to stop the threat and if the attacker has a weapon, striking them might be reasonable.
"If the person attacking your sibling is a police officer executing their duties unlawfully (e.g., an unprovoked or brutal assault), the same self-defence laws apply. However, if the police officer is carrying out a lawful arrest or action, intervening with physical force to stop them could result in you being charged with a crime such as obstructing or assaulting a police officer in the execution of their duty."
So, if the accused has been found 'not guilty', it will have been contextualised about provocation to trigger the 'self-defence' clause.
Finally, the law makes allowances for the heat of the moment. The courts recognise that when acting instinctively in a moment of unexpected anguish, you cannot be expected to measure your defensive action with perfect precision.
All these factors would have come into play over anyone's perceived ethnicity for the jury under instruction from the judge.
They have they got off with attacking a 3rd officer.They've already been convicted of assaults.
Thjs trial was for an attack on a 3rd officer. The jury couldn't agree.
That was all. They haven't got off with anything.
They'll be sentenced at a later date.
That’s how it should work but clearly from the footage the evidence was ignored by at least 3 jurors in each trial, only they know the reason but they’re clearly, biased, dishonest, stupid or all three.Perhaps the juries decided on the basis of the evidence presented during the trials. Which is kind of the point of a trial.
You are as you posted on the thread.37 pages for 2 dickheads having a scuffle at the airport who fucking cares man go outside and touch grass
That's me in the clear then, cos having watched the footage I've haven't got a clue how he walked away scot free.Well, are you part of the "we all know why they got off" merchants?
If not, you have nothing to worry about as my post didn't implicate you obviously.
Im as left as they come but how the fuck have these rats got away with this? I got more punishment for smoking herb. Someone make it make sense
I'm pretty certain I didn't ever announce I was a police officer when making an arrest-unless off duty, in plain clothes or during a stop search.Do you know if the arrest was declared? Police presence doesn't equate to arrest.
Context matters.