[sanskritical]

Yes, the prosecutor defined the "victim" in this case as the third party receiving the text messages. They were so harmed by hearing someone who beat the defendant until she had a brain injury called a slur that the only remedy was bust into her house with a swat team to put her in a jail cell, instead of having the "victim" block and cut ties with the sender.

[onraglanroad]

So you knew the details and chose to misrepresent the situation.

We don't have SWAT teams in the UK. She'd have been sent a letter telling her to appear in court on a certain date.

If you feel the need to lie continually, you shouldn't really consider yourself a Christian.

[sanskritical]

I didn't misrepresent the situation it all. It is exactly as I described.

11 armed people is a functional equivalent of a SWAT team. My statement was hyperbolic. If you serve someone a court summons for a bullshit charge it is a threat of violence against their person. And the charge was bullshit. And the threat of violence was followed up with force.

I'm not lying. I'm also not Christian at all! Never claimed to be.

[onraglanroad]

Sorry, mixed you up with someone else in this thread.

I don't believe that 11 armed people turned up to arrest her. I've never heard of such a thing.

Edit: ok, I'm going to assume you had no idea that UK police officers are not routinely armed. Armed officers are specifically trained and only deployed when the suspect is thought to be armed. Most of those were probably IT to check computers and devices.

She pled guilty to the charge on the advice of her lawyer.

Edit 2: actually the more I read on this the less I believe. An initial contact by the police would be 2 police officers, they would knock at the door and ask to speak to you. How did they get a warrant to get in? Is this all completely bullshit?