The name of 3 magistrates from Lancashire have been revealed, they were :
Stevie Wonder, Andrea Bocelli & Helen Keller.
I was gobsmacked to watch how 3 magistrates supposedly looked at CCTV evidence and did not see clear crucial evidence that was also presented to them via statements. The evidence clearly shows a male dragging a victim about in a headlock, then kicking him ‘on the floor‘ before he then punches him in the spine (the victim has had prior spinal surgery). The magistrates said they believed this was ‘reasonable force‘ justifying the vicious attack by saying the attacker was using ‘self defence‘ (of another person)…. even though that ‘other person’ was not even there.
Bear in mind, ‘the other person‘ was himself convicted of assaulting the victim before grabbing his phone and then later repeatedly punching him again!
All the victim did was get out of his car and attempt to grab his attacker before he was then punched and kicked by 3 people!
The Magistrates who were notified by the statements and the CPS about the kicking, never made ANY comments at all and then acquitted the offender.
The acquitted offender (who has a prior criminal conviction):
- Grabbed his victim in a headlock (around the neck) – Assault 1
- Kicked him after he dragged him to the floor – Assault 2
- Punched him in his back – Assault 3
At no time did the victim make any attempt to punch, kick or any other form of attack. The victim maintained a defensive position with his arms around his own head to protect himself while he was being beaten (punched and kicked by three people)
It is assumed each of the magistrates are either blind or in some other way impaired. Possibly on drugs or maybe there was a pre-determined conclusion!
It was pretty obvious that the magistrates decision was intentionally biased (to say the least), some would say there was malice!
The following has been added to clarify the outline of the case (due to targeted abuse):
The case this article relates was that:
- A person (A) was in his car.
- He was having an argument with another person (B) via the passenger window.
- During this argument, another person (C) approached (A) via the drivers window. (C) punched (A) and grabbed his phone while he sat in his car. (C) was not preset at all during the argument between (A & B).
- (C) was found guilty for attacking (A).
- (A) who, at this point in time was now a victim of crime, got out of his car and tried to grab (C) who had just grabbed his phone.
- (A) was charged and found guilty for using ‘unreasonable force‘. The force used was to grab the attacker who had punched him and grabbed his phone from his hand. (C) punched (A) again when he was grabbed.
- (B) ran over to (A) who had grabbed hold of (C) around the neck in a headlock, (C) walked off.
- (B) then kicked (A) who was then on the floor. A friend of (C) also kicked (A)
- (A) got off the floor, (B) then punched him. At the time of the punch, (C) was approx. 4m away (12ft).
- At no point did (A) punch anyone. (A) had only attempted to retrieve his phone that was grabbed from his hand by the convicted attacker (C).
- It is odd how (B) who has a criminal record was acquitted after kicking and punching a man on the floor.
- The magistrates deemed this ‘reasonable force‘ by (B) to defend (C) punching AND kicking a man on the floor.
- The person who (B) claimed to be ‘defending’ had, at this point, gone!
More weird, how (A) was convicted for trying to grab an attacker who had punched him and grabbed his phone.
No evidence can or will be disclosed or discussed (at this stage), as further evidence has come to light and will be presented to the courts in due course.
More to follow…