DaisyAnneReturns
I write my posts very carefully Blondiescot. Please do not put words in my mouth.
The evidence is not "indisputable". Indeed, the point of a court is to dispute or argue such evidence. You were not in the position the court was.
Who has said it was acceptable behaviour.? I don't find the twisting of my words acceptable behaviour. But I would no more want mob justice to descend on you, because you have behaved in what I consider a less than civilised way, than I approve of the mob justice dealt out to this woman.
Werner Herzog said, "Civilization is like a thin layer of ice upon a deep ocean of chaos and darkness." Behaviour like this woman's may break through this thin layer but so does the attempt at mob justice, the 'need' to be angry I have seen on here and on social media generally.
As mob attacks have more chance of breaking down society than one woman and one horse can, I would deem the mob to be more dangerous to society, as a whole, than the woman, however unreasonable you may find that.
The evidence is not "indisputable". Indeed, the point of a court is to dispute or argue such evidence. You were not in the position the court was.
The evidence that she caused unnecessary suffering was not sufficient to convict her of the offence. After GSM's succinct explanation, I think most of us understand that.
The woman has admitted that she kicked and slapped the horse and implied that it was a proportionate response at that moment - the 'moment' we saw only in part on the video. However, coupled with the bit of the video we did see, and her defence of her actions - then the fact that she hit the animal is indisputable.
As for mob violence, I agree with you - however I don't believe anyone posting here and discussing the verdict, is likely to form part of any mob bent on terrorising this woman.