This can't go on.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It would suggest to me anyway that in order to fund what you consider their 'victimless' crimes, they had no empathy for the victims of their crimes. It would appear that your definition of a 'victimless crime', and societal standards of 'victimless crimes' are at odds with each other.

Not hard to define. A victimless crime is one where there was no victim. Where no one actually suffered in any way from the person engaging in this "crime". Buying and smoking marijuana comes to mind. Allowing people to make an income by allowing them to charge for sexual services, and allowing customers pay for sexual services is another. Chasing people like Stephen Fry around for insulting the character of an imaginary being would be another.

People want police patrols and the like. Great. Then get rid of these pointless and useless victimless crimes and free up some resources (and even generate taxable income streams to fund yet more resources) so we can do just that.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

People who care more about their natural desire to get high, will place their natural desire to get high above all else

Who are we talking about here exactly? Take alcohol for example. People also seem to have a desire to get drunk. The vast majority of people do not put that desire "above all else". However history and prohibition shows us that making these things illegally, pointlessly and for no good reason, does lead people to engage in criminal activity to obtain them. And a complete waste of resources to try (and fail, like they did with alcohol and like they mostly are doing now with many drugs) to stop them.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

and that leads to people indulging in hurting and harming other people as a means to an end.

As does putting peoples desires in the hands of an illegal and criminal underground who find ways to exploit the consumer through terrorism, poor standard product, product cut with substances to maximize the addictive nature of them, unregulated pricing, and hard selling of harder substances.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's their desire to put their desires above the welfare of all others which leads to fuelling criminality to meet the demand for people's natural desire to get high, and fuelling their desire to to get high is what fuels people's compulsive criminal behavior, which leads to them needing to get high to escape having to empathise with the people who are hurt by their behavior.

What fuels the criminality is putting the product or service in the hands of the criminal in the first place. When you do not do that, you undercut the criminals ability to exploit that industry. I remember a time when cigarettes were openly being sold by people on henry street for example. They were a fraction of the price of the over the counter product in the shops. Yet the majority of people seem to have chosen the moral path and bought the more expensive official product and now I rarely, in fact almost never, see illegal ones being sold any more. There is no point/profit in even trying.

Even in the supermarkets many people reach for the more expensive more humane products, like free range eggs over battery hen eggs, when given the option. Give people a moral and legitimate option and they often tend to take it. Take their options away and put them in the hands of criminals, they will take that too. And THAT is fueling the criminal behavior at the root more than the knock on behavior at rarer individual levels that you are moaning about.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

People who want to ingest drugs don't care about the harm that sourcing those drugs causes to other people

You simply do not know that to be true, you are projecting what you want them to think and feel onto them vicariously. I suspect you will find that many people in fact DO care about that. Very much. The fact that their intention to get the product OUTWEIGHS those concerns, does not mean those concerns are not actually there. The latter would be your fantasy and no more.

I for one have on rare occasion purchased hash illegally in Dublin City. And I very much did care that in doing so I was possibly fueling the funds of criminal gangs. But it was my only option to source that product at the time.

Had I the option between a legitimate, legal, taxed, more expensive over the counter version of the product however I not only would not have paid criminal gangs for it, the idea that it was even an option worth considering in the first place to do so would not have entered my mind AT ALL.

Give people the option like that and THEN you might be entering into valid territory by fantasizing that the people who purchase the illegal option likely do not care what harm their sourcing of the product causes. Because then, completely unlike now, you would be quite likely to be entirely correct. Rather than, like now, entirely imagining stuff on behalf of other people because it suits your narrative.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's why we institute laws, for the good of society, as opposed to pandering to the whims and desires of a tiny minority of people who just want to get high or have sex

Or perhaps you would be pandering to the whims or puritans who are overly obsessed by the actions and activities of people..... who are not them...... that effect only people...... who are also not them........... that are involved.

I am all for the idea that we should institute laws "for the good of society". But I am also very much into the axiom of "Innocent until proven guilty". And therefore it would really be up to the people wanting to support the existence of, or establishment of, a law to show that it actually is "for the good of society".

I already mentioned three such laws. A law against drugs. A law against the selling of sexual services. And a law against Blasphemy. And i know from past experience that people, very much including yourself, have done anything BUT show why such laws actually are in any way beneficial to society.

In fact the exact opposite seems to be true. They are harmful to people, a complete waste of resources otherwise needed elsewhere, a waste of potential revenue streams, a generation of an environment in which criminal gangs prosper, the creation of an environment in which avoidable disease and injury prosper, and a stigma on genuine people otherwise involved in those industries who are at an individual level harming absolutely no body.

Whereas laws you have spoken against, such as laws against parents hitting children, have good arguments as to why laws against them would be for the good of individuals and society. And yet you appear to support parents who want to pursue a violence based approach to parenting.

So regale us with explanations on how this is all "for the good of society" "as opposed to pandering to the whims and desires of a tiny minority of people who just want to" enforce their control freak puritan agendas on people and society around them.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Society doesn't generally tend to look kindly on those sorts of people who only act in their own self-interest.

Then "society" would need to get over itself because pretty much all of us are acting in our own self interest pretty much all of the time. Pretty much everyone is looking out for themselves and their loved ones before they look to everyone else. Rather than moral high horsing about people serving their own personal goals, we should prosper by focusing on where those goals are aligned and where we can map self interest onto societal interest. The goals of society and laws should therefore be to construct the best environment in which that simply reality can be acknowledged. And allow people to invest in goals, agendas, narratives and projects that align our interests in a way that not everything has to be zero sum. No small feat but not one that is achieved by puritans obsessing about what people they have nothing to do with do with their free time.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's very simple - you offer them alternatives that they can actually see a greater value in for themselves. This not only gives them something to do, it gives them something to work towards and a sense of being proud of their achievements that they can see are a positive contribution to society.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're right, it isn't there at the moment, and the reason it isn't there at the moment is simply because nobody really gives a shìt. The reason nobody gives a shìt is because they regard these people as scumbags beyond redemption and therefore not even worth trying to help. That's the situation as it currently stands, and fast forward another generation and there's going to be yet another generation of scumbags and the scumbags who condemn them.

Here however we are in near complete agreement. This very much should be a focus of local and national concern. Speaking only anecdotally, every instance of criminality in youth I have seen has stemmed at some level from the kids basically having nothing else to do. And/or having parents who are not invested in nurturing them or ARE invested in it but the demands of modern day life leave them little or no time to pursue it.

There is a Boards user who I will not name as I am not sure he wants his actions discussed and he is currently out of the country for a month so I can not ask him. Though I doubt little the regulars here will guess who it is. But he recently confronted a group of youths very much like the ones in the OP. Terrorizing and making hell the life of the locals with intimidating and even outright violent behavior. And disturbance of the peace with noise and litter and so forth. The police called many times but did little, and achieved less.

So he waltzed up one day and did some innocent things that he knew would provoke them to pounce. Simple things like wearing something that made him stand out (think he wore a half open pink shirt or some such). When they shouted out at him, as he knew they would, he merely ignored them and walked past and gave them the finger over his shoulder. They attacked. He knew they would.

He beat them. Easily. Then rather than run away, call the police, or finish them off he basically started explaining to them what they had done wrong. Made one of them stand up and do something they had done again. And he showed them how he had deflected and countered it. And then said "Now you try".

Since then he has been meeting them often and training them to fight. To the horror of the community at first. "You want to teach those knackers how to fight BETTER???!!!??" kind of reactions. People calling around to him asking him at first to stop enabling their violence by honing it. But he went on because he did not see "scumbags beyond redemption and therefore not even worth trying to help".

But last I heard, before he left the country for a few weeks, he was still training them. And doing so in a variety of places. He even approached one of the little old ladies that he knew, who was too intimidated to use the short cut those youths used to occupy because they had accosted her in the past, to use her garden for the training. After some convincing she allowed it. They showed up, and first he had them help him clean up her garden..... then she brought out lemonade and cookies and the like as LIttle Old Ladies are wont to do and regaled them with stories of her own youth, then they trained and they left.

He then convinced her to take that short cut with her shopping a couple of days later. Alone. She was ****ting herself but she did it because she knows and trust him. The youths were there hanging out as usual. Quietly for once. They saw her coming and called out "Hey Mrs. Jones" (not her real name of course) and helped her carry her bags home.

The more they want to learn from him, the more he contrives to get them involved in other things first. They went picking litter up along the local canal recently too. And he trained them then there at the canal.

I will message him and ask him to drop in when he gets back to Ireland to talk more on this, if he wants to. But I was gobsmacked myself. These kids were written off as the worst of the worst by the small community he lives in. But with a small amount of guidance, attention, and engagement with them he quickly became a mentor and father figures and their behavior changed in a short period of time from the kind of people who terrorized little old ladies, to the kind who go out of their way to carry their shopping home with them.

Kids are not born evil. Even the ones who we would judge as being the worst of the worst. And the nudge they need to send them in the right direction is surprisingly minor when it happens. We just need more adults with the time, resources, and motivation to actually do it. Alas our modern society does not leave people with much free time and energy to do it. Realistically how many people are likely to stand up and invest time in doing what he is doing? Almost no one. Which leaves people calling someone like him a "hero" when his actions in an "ideal" world would be common place.

I have no idea how the crime statistics here in Germany compare to there in Ireland. But I do know I do not go anywhere in my small town (4000 people), or around the moderately sized city where I work (70,000) and see youths hanging out causing problems or issues visibly like I do walking around Sligo city,Cork City, Dublin City, Clontarf and so forth back home.

But here there is a strong "Verein" culture with government financial incentives and benefits to organizers and members alike. And most youths here seem to have something in their lives. From sport (usually football but others too) to music (usually Recorder and Guitar but others too) to miscellaneous other (like involvement in community Fire Fighters and the like which start young. My 7 year old daughter is a member of that at the moment).

I do not see what you are saying here as being a counter or rebuttal to hatrickpatrick. I think hatrickpatrick is almost entirely right on all the things he is saying too. I think BOTH solutions need to exist in parallel. And it is a waste of airspace to suggest one better than the other, one replace the other, or one is in any way in conflict with the other. I see every reason they are mutually supportive channels that we need to invest in in parallel.

The J Stands for Jay

One eyed Jack wrote: »

. That's why we institute laws, for the good of society, as opposed to pandering to the whims and desires of a tiny minority of people who just want to get high or have sex, and not have to think about the ill-effects of their behavior on society..

I'm not aware of the law that was to prevent that kid's parents riding.

YFlyer

Kora Young Lifeguard wrote: »

Set up a secret state police with one objective the complete eradication of the scum benefit class that is destroying the very soul of what makes this country great
Burn them all

Like in Brazil?

tomofson

Limerick91 wrote: »

And in 4 or 5 years this scumbag will be breeding more scumbags and the cycle continues

Forced sterilization I say

I agree with sterilization, but to say anyone born into a bad background is automatically a scumbag just shows what you are more than what they are.

1eg0a3xv7b82of

The secret police would be made up exclusively of the elite of this country
It would be run like a cult with love for god and country. These men would never turn on traditional conservative celts

wexie wrote: »

And what will they do when they've accomplished that goal?

I'm sure they won't mind giving up all that power when they're no longer needed right?

Limerick91

Limerick91 wrote: »

And in 4 or 5 years this scumbag will be breeding more scumbags and the cycle continues

Forced sterilization I say

Funny how quickly jump to eugenics around here

hatrickpatrick

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's very simple - you offer them alternatives that they can actually see a greater value in for themselves. This not only gives them something to do, it gives them something to work towards and a sense of being proud of their achievements that they can see are a positive contribution to society. This is what I mean by a sense of community development, being proud of their own communities. If they see the value in something, they want to protect it rather than destroy it.

Attempting to restrict their movements to keep them away from people who regard them as scumbags isn't working. It just makes those people more deserving of their contempt in their eyes. Prejudice and bigotry begets prejudice and bigotry.

But if you lock each and every one of the individuals cited by the OP article up, today, then tomorrow and the day after that, they won't be around to attack some random passer by. Because they'll be locked up. Mission accomplished.

jim salter

@One Eyed Jack : Fúck off will ya

Cupatae

Sam Quentin wrote: »

Why is this ALLOWED to happen, just patrol the area more regularly or ...., even just flood those areas with Gardaí!?
But it has to be stopped.

http://www.thejournal.ie/canal-crime-courts-4122979-Jul2018/

The biggest shame is, they were being bullied by a 15 year old, the world is full of pussies now a days, lad shuda been given a boot up the hole, the SJW and the softies have society destroyed nothing but a bunch of victims around!

You deserve to have your stuff taken if a child can take it off u lmao

liam7831

They should ban the sale of ropes in the area to anyone under 18, maybe introduce an ID requirement to accompany the purchase of said rope

Graces7

brevity wrote: »

It's despicable that this stuff goes on and if someone used self defense they would end up in more trouble than the scumbag.

Curfew and or mandatory service. If the parents can't control them or don't care that they are committing crimes then off to boot camp.

Boot camp with army personnel who will take no nonsense. Then the Army for them. They have had no discipline in their lives. And they fear no one. The training needs to start young.

archer22

Graces7 wrote: »

Boot camp with army personnel who will take no nonsense. Then the Army for them. They have had no discipline in their lives. And they fear no one. The training needs to start young.

And then stick them into the gay pride parade wearing angel wings and rainbow sunglasses...they wouldn't look such hard men to their mates then :pac:

weldoninhio

liam7831 wrote: »

They should ban the sale of ropes in the area to anyone under 18, maybe introduce an ID requirement to accompany the purchase of said rope

Ban skipping ropes. They’re a gateway rope

goat2

I thought that we as parents were held responsible for their actions until they reached a certain age,

shakeitoff

probably born evil, if he was educated, he'd probably be a ted bundy type.

hatrickpatrick

I'm not sure about the "born evil" thing, but there's definitely such a thing as "anti social personality type / disorder" which is basically summed up by The Dark Knight's description of The Joker: "Some men aren't interested in anything logical, they can't be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with. Some men, just want to watch the world burn."

The problem I have with the arguments about giving them something better to aspire to, a better community etc is that they don't address the fundamental personality clash involved: There are people in the world who possess empathy, meaning that the pain and suffering of others is something they find unpleasant to witness or even be aware of. And there are people in the world who possess none, which means that they are indifferent to the pain and suffering of others. But there's a third category, which I suppose you could call a sadistic personality type, where the pain and suffering of others is actually something which causes enjoyment in the eyes of people with this personality.

The reason most people don't do stuff like this isn't because they have "better things to do" - it's because on a fundamental level, seeing others experiencing hardship is not an enjoyable experience for them. It's pretty obvious that the gang of kids mentioned in the OP are the opposite - seeing others experiencing hardship causes them joy or amusement.

And I don't think it's unreasonable to say that I just don't want to share my country with individuals of the latter personality type, because fundamentally, that whole personality is something I find totally repulsive.

As far as I'm concerned, the type of person who finds it anything other than upsetting or unpleasant to witness, much less actually be involved in, knocking a person off their bicycle and hurting them unprovoked and without any reason whatsoever, is someone who simply does not belong in the free streets of a civilised society. They belong in a restricted environment of some kind or other, where they are physically restrained from acting on their perverse idea of "fun". And as far as I'm concerned, unless such people demonstrate that they have undergone a fundamental personality shift, they should remain in the aforementioned restricted environment. This doesn't have to mean jail - it can mean house arrest. It can mean under electronic tagging and constant surveillance by the Gardaí. Essentially, anything which means that there is 100% zero chance whatsoever of you or me, or anyone else, encountering one of these individuals and having our day ruined by their behaviour - because they won't actually be out anywhere we might encounter them.

That's the original purpose of imprisonment as far as I'm concerned, not to punish, not even to rehabilitate, but just to say "our town was dangerous yesterday because there was a violent person living here, and you never knew when he or she might target you. It is no longer dangerous today, because that violent person is physically incapable of targeting anyone". That's it. Mission accomplished.

the purple tin

Foggy Jew wrote: »

'The teen, who lacked parental supervision, hadn't been in school since third class'. So, what age was he, 8 or 9 when he left school? How did that slip under the radar? The parent(s) abdicated responsibility for this kid. What other way was he going to end up? I'm not making excuses for him, I'm simply asking the question. He would have been salvageable at age 8.

It's possible that he was so out of control even at that age that the school/teachers stopped reporting his absence so that he wouldn't be brought back.

demanufactured

jimgoose wrote: »

Steel-cored baton to the back of the head?

Fyp

demanufactured

Ipso wrote: »

So how is a society meant to deal with a serial pest?

Anthrax?

demanufactured

Donald Trump wrote: »

Harvest the little shits for spare parts.

I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who will be willing and able contribute a lot to society when they get their heart or lung or kidney transplant

Mince them up for dog food.

Uncharted

Uncharted wrote: »

A little bit of hardship might open their eyes.

Some of them have their own hardships I guess. I am the one described in a post above who got friendly with some of the local hoods and started teaching them to fight.

They have so little to do in their life and so little interactions or support or guidance from their parents. Their parents are essentially throwing "Go out with yer friends wud ya" at them. In some cases because the parents are ass-hats and don't care. In some cases because while the parents do care they have so many other stresses and issues they are not coping at all.

I talked to the parents of the kids I am training now and met the two types. And this is a hardship for the kids.

The first type basically acted like the parents in Rhold Dahls Matilda. Why should anyone - including me - give a crap about the kids. No one's problem but the kids themselves in their view.

The second type when I was talking to them broke down crying. They knew they weren't doing it right. They really want to. But it just keeps getting away from them. Every time they send the kids out of the house they are thinking "tomorrow I will find time to do stuff with them and bond with them and be a parent but today I gotta get this done - - - " and it just cycles on endlessly.

The change in the kids from hoods to real people in the short time with me is remarkable to watch. I spent weeks in Russia for the world cup - people I vaguely knew there brought me over at their expense which was amazing and an incredible experience.

When I got back the kids (teens really) were at the airport with hand drawn and colored in signs welcoming me back. Hugs and fist bumps all around.

It is so easy to think of these kids as evil sometimes. How easy it must be to write a sentence like "Mince them" and then not actually do anything at all. The sofa and keyboard are such a comfortable and easy place to be. Irredeemables as the awful Clinton woman might say. Hopeless cases fit only for prison or castration or more. But my recent experience shows the smallest level of actual human connection and a wave of changes come over them. And they seem even baffled themselves at the pointless harm and intimidation and poor behaviour they got up to.

It's like they just do it - knowing they do not want to _be_ that way all the while they do. It really pulled my heart for how tragic it is. And I know this little group is repeated how many times over the world in every town and city.