|
|
Post by dogless on Apr 13, 2024 20:17:33 GMT
What a horrendous story emerging from Australia.
A 40 year old guy randomly attacking folks in a shopping mall with a knife.
A nine month old baby under going surgery and it's Mother amongst the dead.
Takes ones breath away.
Rog
|
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Apr 13, 2024 20:39:05 GMT
I was following this earlier. Australian police suggesting it was unlikely to be a terror incident. Who really gives a flying fuck about the official categorisation of crimes. It was a terror incident for those caught up in it all right. That's what really matters.
|
|
|
|
Post by on Apr 13, 2024 20:42:08 GMT
I never understood these categories.
If I get violently attacked at a bus stop it is not a hate crime but if someone with a characteristic gets violently attacked at a bus stop it is a hate crime.
I don't see the difference.
In both situations someone got violently attacked at a bus stop.
|
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Apr 13, 2024 20:48:30 GMT
I never understood these categories. If I get violently attacked at a bus stop it is not a hate crime but if someone with a characteristic gets violently attacked at a bus stop it is a hate crime. I don't see the difference. In both situations someone got violently attacked at a bus stop. The situation you describe results from the introduction of different rights for different people. Oddly, with the hope of achieving equality. |
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Apr 13, 2024 20:50:20 GMT
Apparently it was a lady / female / woman officer who arrived first on scene and shot him.
Thank goodness as there's little doubt further life would have been lost.
Rog
|
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Apr 13, 2024 20:53:24 GMT
Yes I heard it repeated many times that it was a female police officer. I'm not sure why that's relevant really.
|
|
|
|
Post by dogless on Apr 13, 2024 20:55:09 GMT
Because it's fact.
Rog
|
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 13, 2024 20:56:42 GMT
I never understood these categories. If I get violently attacked at a bus stop it is not a hate crime but if someone with a characteristic gets violently attacked at a bus stop it is a hate crime. I don't see the difference. In both situations someone got violently attacked at a bus stop. The situation you describe results from the introduction of different rights for different people. Oddly, with the hope of achieving equality. But in fact this is a perfectly reasonable concept if you pause for thought. if you are a “normal person” (whatever that means) you have a very small chance - but nevertheless a chance - of being the victim of a random violent attack. If you are a person with a “protected characteristic” you should have an equal chance of a random violent attack if things were fair. But because some people consider such protected characteristics fair game for violent attention, in fact people possessing those protected characteristics would suffer a much increased probability of suffering a random violent attack. Which is not fair. So in order to redress the balance to some small extent, it has been decided to make the perpetration of a violent random attack on grounds of the protected characteristic, a more serious crime. The general idea being to make it more of a deterrent. Whether this actually works in practice is perhaps questionable, but the briefest analysis shows that it is a meritorious concept. |
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Apr 13, 2024 21:03:59 GMT
Personally if I'm attacked I demand that the perpetrator be a religious extremist. Accept no substitutes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Apr 13, 2024 21:05:26 GMT
The situation you describe results from the introduction of different rights for different people. Oddly, with the hope of achieving equality. But in fact this is a perfectly reasonable concept if you pause for thought. if you are a “normal person” (whatever that means) you have a very small chance - but nevertheless a chance - of being the victim of a random violent attack. If you are a person with a “protected characteristic” you should have an equal chance of a random violent attack if things were fair. But because some people consider such protected characteristics fair game for violent attention, in fact people possessing those protected characteristics would suffer a much increased probability of suffering a random violent attack. Which is not fair. So in order to redress the balance to some small extent, it has been decided to make the perpetration of a violent random attack on grounds of the protected characteristic, a more serious crime. The general idea being to make it more of a deterrent. Whether this actually works in practice is perhaps questionable, but the briefest analysis shows that it is a meritorious concept. The problem with this is that there are numerous reasons why someone might hate someone else enough to commit a crime against them. The selection of a small number of categories has the effect of giving those with these qualities an elevated status whilst those afflicted with 'qualities' not listed must accept the hatred that comes their way. They must accept this with good grace in the knowledge that their suffering isn't as important as the suffering of others, in this society, which wants everyone to be equal. |
|
|
|
Post by on Apr 13, 2024 21:05:49 GMT
Yes but how would one actually know that the protected characteristic was in fact the reason for the attack in the first place?
How could one prove this?
If there is a psycho out looking to attack someone they might be blind to that person's particular characteristic.
You seem to be suggesting for example if a black man was violently attacked at a bus stop it must be because he was black rather than because the attacker just wanted to attack someone because of their own personal issues.
I can see the argument but I still think someone without a characteristic being violently attacked at a bus stop is the victim of a hate crime.
Hate crime is just a bullshit label.
Crime is crime.
|
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Apr 13, 2024 21:15:47 GMT
Yes of course. The sex/ gender of the person who pulled the trigger wasn't relevant though along with the colour of their skin, sexual orientation etc. etc. |
|
|
|
Post by fi on Apr 13, 2024 21:16:54 GMT
There is an element of deterent in things though. Shop workers have now got a bit more protection due to their job (becauase they are more likely to be attacked than many others). Not a perfect system but at least it tries to act to stop crime happening.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Apr 13, 2024 21:22:25 GMT
No-one has so far assessed Claire Rayner's guilt in this incident.
|
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 13, 2024 21:28:06 GMT
But in fact this is a perfectly reasonable concept if you pause for thought. if you are a “normal person” (whatever that means) you have a very small chance - but nevertheless a chance - of being the victim of a random violent attack. If you are a person with a “protected characteristic” you should have an equal chance of a random violent attack if things were fair. But because some people consider such protected characteristics fair game for violent attention, in fact people possessing those protected characteristics would suffer a much increased probability of suffering a random violent attack. Which is not fair. So in order to redress the balance to some small extent, it has been decided to make the perpetration of a violent random attack on grounds of the protected characteristic, a more serious crime. The general idea being to make it more of a deterrent. Whether this actually works in practice is perhaps questionable, but the briefest analysis shows that it is a meritorious concept. The problem with this is that there are numerous reasons why someone might hate someone else enough to commit a crime against them. The selection of a small number of categories has the effect of giving those with these qualities an elevated status whilst those afflicted with 'qualities' not listed must accept the hatred that comes their way. They must accept this with good grace in the knowledge that their suffering isn't as important as the suffering of others, in this society, which wants everyone to be equal. It is important to bear in mind the difference between a personal reason to hate another specific person enough to commit a crime against them, vs a generic reason. If someone has a personal grievance against someone else, it is likely due to the latter actively doing something that is resented, annoying, creates a nuisance etc. That behaviour is ultimately a choice, and violent reaction to it is unlikely to be the first response unless it is obviously and predictably objectionable. In other words, the attack is not random based on generic and intrinsic characteristics , it is a consequence of a specific behavioural choice. Whereas the reason for a generic attack on grounds solely of a protected characteristic, is a random attack not based on any behavioural choice nor something that could be avoided by “being of good behaviour”. So although you are weaponising emotiveness in order to empower your argument, in fact the issue is nothing to do with creating a league table of suffering importance, it is about attempting to even out the rates of occurrence of violent attack by reducing the incidences violent attacks on certain sections of society who have to endure a much higher chance of suffering a random violent attack. So it is about the numbers, not about ranking the importance. |
|
