Your comment suggests you’ve taken lessons from Joseph Goebbelz…not because you oppose fascism, but because you’re using the same tactic he perfected: weaponizing emotionally loaded labels to inflame outrage and mobilize people to violence.

Nope. Using the same tactic as someone doesn’t mean you have the same values as them, or even learned the tactic from them.

Nazi concentration camps run by the Nazi Party during World War II were instruments of genocide, culminating in industrialized murder at places like Auschwitz.

ICE detention facilities, whatever criticisms one may have, are civil immigration detention centers…not,z extermination camps. Equating the two erases intent and trivializes the Holocaust.

Nope. Nazi concentration camps were not extermination camps from the get go. Read a book.

As Goebbels himself famously argued, if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it…and that is exactly the propaganda playbook you’re running

Nope. This is way wide of the mark. You seem to think you’ve proved something but you really haven’t.

What you have done, though, is defended ICE. Why would you do that? Here’s a question for you: what would it take, at a minimum, for you to accept that ICE are a fascist organisation? I think before you answer you might do well to review the definitions of fascism.

A member of a “democratic socialist” party calling a nazi a nazi, sensationalised as groundbreaking. What a world we now live in.

Sure looked like it. Sure looks like you’ve been proved definitively wrong and now you’re like iT wAs OnLy A jOkE bRo. You sure look like a bad faith commenter who can’t admit they’re wrong, or “twat” if you want to use the shorthand.

Yep in those cases it seems right, but as a blanket I’m not so sure. There’s a grey area at the fringes of which a thief steals a Lucozade from a shop and can’t prosecute the shopkeeper for breaking his legs so he can’t escape before the police arrive.

I didn’t know that. That seems completely unjust. I hope the private prosecution would be allowed after the CPS is finished with the case?

Protestors can’t bring charges? Can you explain what you mean by that because it’s definitely not correct as is. Protestors have the protection of the law just like everybody else.
Only the CPS can prosecute? That’s not right either, private prosecutions are allowed in the UK, under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. You can have your case heard in the magistrates court for example.

So for you, justice will only be done when a jury finds him guilty? Because he’s already been tried by jury once

So it would be a different case, with a different prosecution, if the protesters were bringing charges against the security guard, no?

Well if they have, then the prosecution in that case certainly haven’t been as energetic in propagandising the violence as the prosecution for the crown.

You seem to be someone who has faith in institutions. Do you not think justice has been done? The jury saw the same video you did and didn’t believe it to be GBH with intent. So the officer who was injured has had her justice.

It’s in the article there:

jurors did not return a verdict on the charge faced by Corner of grievous bodily harm with intent for striking a police officer with a sledgehammer.

Here’s another interesting bit:

Bodycam footage presented to the jury appeared to show security guard Angelo Volante allegedly striking defendant Devlin in the neck with a sledgehammer, knocking him to the ground.

A series of images and a body map detailing Devlin’s injuries, including a black eye, was presented to the jury.

In another clip, Volante is seen brandishing a whip and running towards Devlin, who was unarmed. He then picked up a sledgehammer and swung it at Devlin and co-defendant Rogers.

Let’s hope there’s some justice for the protesters, eh?