Hate crime? Really?

weldoninhio wrote: »

It's in the post you quoted.

Here it is again Your point is nonsense.

Do you find yourself getting dizzy with all that evasion of difficult questions?

Hector Savage wrote: »

Because it's the thin end of the wedge, you call this a hate crime, then you can start calling anything a hate crime.

Hate crime is a stupid expression anyway, it's a crime or it's not.

So this IS actually a hate crime, but you don't want to call it a hate crime just in case that means you have to call other crimes hate crimes.

Gotcha.

riffmongous wrote: »

She fecking obviously noticed him going over her head
'A whoosh followed by a thud'

if this is the criteria for assault then a lot of posters in this thread are being assaulted by common sense whooshing over their heads all day id say

Would there be as much outrage if it was someone jumping over Peter Crouch's head? Other than it being an athletic achievement could it be perceived as a slight against tall people?

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

Would there be as much outrage if it was someone jumping over Peter Crouch's head? Other than it being an athletic achievement could it be perceived as a slight against tall people?

argument would quickly turn into whether the athlete doing the jumping should be allowed to compete as non-specific gender

Hector Savage

riffmongous wrote: »

They didn't intimidate her? Jesus Christ but this thread is bring the level of contrary here to a new height of stupidity

So tell me the difference if they do that to someone thats 5ft3 ?

Hector Savage

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So this IS actually a hate crime, but you don't want to call it a hate crime just in case that means you have to call other crimes hate crimes.

Gotcha.

No because the definition will start to become too broad, like I said what about this against a "regular" small person, or even a tall guy - as mentioned ?
Is that also a hate crime ?

What about a 6ft 2 white straight male, muscular and he can handle himself, the lads try the same and he scuffs him - doesn't quite make it.

Technically thats more of an assault ??

Gimme A Pound

It really kills Weldoninho to show compassion. Empathy is for pussies, eh Weld? This is a woman who has it tougher than those who aren't her size. I'm 5ft 5 - I cannot say my experience is the same as hers. It's incredibly self absorbed not to even try seeing the world through the eyes of someone whose experience is very different, and can have much more difficulties.

This stuff boils down to "If they're getting 'special treatment', I want special treatment!"

Hector Savage wrote: »

Point is tho, to do this to ANYONE is asshole behaviour.
Like I mentioned earlier my cousin is quite small, but not a traditional dwarf.
He has been slagged all his life, in school and in college.
It really drove him as he did really well academically and professionally now - but he could never scream hate crime or anything like that.

These lads didn't assault her, she was in no danger, asshole behaviour and all but calling this a hate crime is a dangerous road to go down.

They intimidated, humiliated, upset her, gave her a fright... because she was easy pickings due to her size, being alone, and being unable to defend herself. Not just anyone would experience it at all. There is no good reason for downplaying it - even dislike of the term "hate crime". Yeah I don't know if that's the right term either but that doesn't take away from the crappiness of the experience.

Others experience it - not seeing how that means this incident shouldn't be discussed.

weldoninhio wrote: »

We've already dealt with the coulda, woulda, didn'ts of this case. :rolleyes:

You did. But it was complete bullshít. People assess what could have happened in various incidents all the time. Especially when an alternative scenario was just as likely to have happened rather than an outlandish suggestion.

Hector Savage wrote: »

My cousin is quite a small chap, but woudn't be a dwarf, maybe he's 5ft 2, if someone leapfrogged over him would it be a hate crime ?

She’s a good deal shorter than 5’2”. Let’s not pretend that that height is close to her height. 5’2” would be a not uncommon height for grown women in this country. So someone of 5’2” being targeted in this way is far less likely. Having said that, as I said earlier in the thread, I don’t consider what happened to her a hate crime, just good old-fashioned opportunistic cowardice.

Hector Savage wrote: »

Exactly, this is the can of worms, and like I said, what about a 5ft2 person that gets leapt over, is that an assault too ?
or would they dismiss that because officially this person is not a "little person" ?

Seriously, do you not realise how commonplace a height 5’2” is? Moreso for women obviously but it’s not a height that would mark someone out as unusual. So to bring it up as if there’s any comparison is disingenuous. What happened to Sinéad would be far less likely to happen to someone of 5’2”.

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

Would there be as much outrage if it was someone jumping over Peter Crouch's head? Other than it being an athletic achievement could it be perceived as a slight against tall people?

Actually, I’d still think it was awful. We all know it would be damn near impossible but if it was possible and happened to him, I’d consider it just as bad. But it’s academic, seeing as it wouldn’t happen. Elite hurdlers clear obstacles that are half his height.

Hector Savage wrote: »

So tell me the difference if they do that to someone thats 5ft3 ?

There isn’t. The 5”3’ person would likely also find it intimidating. But it is far less likely that someone of 5’3” would be singled out in this way. I’m 5’3”. It’s a very commonplace height.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Actually, I’d still think it was awful. We all know it would be damn near impossible but if it was possible and happened to him, I’d consider it just as bad. But it’s academic, seeing as it wouldn’t happen. Elite hurdlers clear obstacles that are half his height.

Just playing devils advocate with the question but I don't know if many people would share your reaction. Maybe I'm wrong. I would think if a story appeared in the paper about some gurriers doing the dame to him as they did to the woman in question, it might be greeted with a lot of laughter.

Hector Savage wrote: »

No because the definition will start to become too broad, like I said what about this against a "regular" small person, or even a tall guy - as mentioned ?
Is that also a hate crime ?

What about a 6ft 2 white straight male, muscular and he can handle himself, the lads try the same and he scuffs him - doesn't quite make it.

Technically thats more of an assault ??

How does simply using a definition of a hate crime mean that it will become too broad?

If it becomes too broad, the problem is that it becomes too broad - not the original definition in the first place.

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

Just playing devils advocate with the question but I don't know if many people would share your reaction. Maybe I'm wrong. I would think if a story appeared in the paper about some gurriers doing the dame to him as they did to the woman in question, it might be greeted with a lot of laughter.

People would find it hard to picture. With good reason seeing as even an elite athlete would struggle to pull off that feat. And his imposing height would make him one of the least likely candidates for such a thing.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

People would find it hard to picture. With good reason seeing as even an elite athlete would struggle to pull off that feat. And his imposing height would make him one of the least likely candidates for such a thing.

Hypothetically speaking though. Actually maybe a better one would be if someone ran through his legs instead of jumped over his head.

Hector Savage

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

How does simply using a definition of a hate crime mean that it will become too broad?

If it becomes too broad, the problem is that it becomes too broad - not the original definition in the first place.

Right so it's a hate crime whomever it happens to.

the relevance of not calling it a hate crime is a matter of resistance of there being a separate category for a crime based on who it happens to

this was an unpleasant experience, yep

crime? not sure, if so im sure its the type of crime that is let slide 99% of the time without going any further

hate crime? whats the purpose? want extra enforcement? harsher sentence? lower bar for guilty verdict? higher rate of prosecution?

explain why you want a designation of hate crime and itll become very apparent what there is to oppose

Gotta love the regulars.

Disabled woman is demeaned and humiliated in an intimidating encounter having been targeted because of her disability (regardless of ridiculous arguments to the contrary)...

...and SHE'S the one with the problem.

Stay classy.

ohnonotgmail

Candie wrote: »

Gotta love the regulars.

Disabled woman is demeaned and humiliated in an intimidating encounter having been targeted because of her disability (regardless of ridiculous arguments to the contrary)...

...and SHE'S the one with the problem.

Stay classy.

This thread is just full of AH classy.

weldoninhio

Irene Grumpy Crystal wrote: »

It really kills Weldoninho to show compassion. Empathy is for pussies, eh Weld? This is a woman who has it tougher than those who aren't her size. I'm 5ft 5 - I cannot say my experience is the same as hers. It's incredibly self absorbed not to even try seeing the world through the eyes of someone whose experience is very different, and can have much more difficulties.

This stuff boils down to "If they're getting 'special treatment', I want special treatment!"

They intimidated, humiliated, upset her, gave her a fright... because she was easy pickings due to her size, being alone, and being unable to defend herself. Not just anyone would experience it at all. There is no good reason for downplaying it - even dislike of the term "hate crime". Yeah I don't know if that's the right term either but that doesn't take away from the crappiness of the experience.

Others experience it - not seeing how that means this incident shouldn't be discussed.

I'd have empathy if something actually f'kin happened. I've empathy for absolutely anyone that is mugged by a scummer or blindsided with a punch or attacked by a gang of scumbags. This is an absolute non

Candie wrote: »

Gotta love the regulars.

Disabled woman is demeaned and humiliated in an intimidating encounter having been targeted because of her disability (regardless of ridiculous arguments to the contrary)...

...and SHE'S the one with the problem.

Stay classy.

its more that......why is this news?

would it be news without her condition?

if not, why not?

should it be?

the projections strung across the wider arguments are just yknow ppl wasting time on the internet i wouldnt get too excited rly

Attacks on the disabled tend to make the news. Anyone who can't defend themselves (like a six foot odd footballer, say), like the elderly, children, the disabled - people (well, other people obv) tend to care about them and feel empathy for their relative vulnerability.

Except for the odd few who don't see the problem because they're just too cool.

Candie wrote: »

Attacks on the disabled tend to make the news. Anyone who can't defend themselves (like a six foot odd footballer, say), like the elderly, children, the disabled - people (well, other people obv) tend to care about them and feel empathy for their relative vulnerability.

Except for the odd few who don't see the problem because they're just too cool.

attacks on anyone bother me.

probably im not cool enough to make special cases over who im told are vulnerable or who i decide myself are vulnerable

weldoninhio

Candie wrote: »

Attacks on the disabled tend to make the news. Anyone who can't defend themselves (like a six foot odd footballer, say), like the elderly, children, the disabled - people (well, other people obv) tend to care about them and feel empathy for their relative vulnerability.

Except for the odd few who don't see the problem because they're just too cool.

If someone bends over to tie their lace and someone leaps over them is that an assault?? :rolleyes:

sabat

Candie wrote: »

Gotta love the regulars.

Disabled woman is demeaned and humiliated in an intimidating encounter having been targeted because of her disability (regardless of ridiculous arguments to the contrary)...

...and SHE'S the one with the problem.

Stay classy.

There's not one person here who doesn't think it was a really sh1tty thing to do and that the kids responsible deserve a kick up the hole. What they do have an issue with is describing it as a hate-motivated assault, ie that they should be brought before a court to face a possible prison sentence. That's just ridiculous.

Candie wrote: »

Anyone who can't defend themselves (like a six foot odd footballer, say

6 foot 7. I'm not sure on his inseam measurement though. For my hypothetical question and science I will endeavour to find out.

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

Hypothetically speaking though. Actually maybe a better one would be if someone ran through his legs instead of jumped over his head.

I can’t see anyone thinking leapfrogging him would be fine. It’s still invading his personal space. Same with running through his legs, though that action doesn’t come with a very real threat of injury which would attenuate it slightly.

PCeeeee

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I can’t see anyone thinking leapfrogging him would be fine. It’s still invading his personal space. Same with running through his legs, though that action doesn’t come with a very real threat of injury.

Depends on how close the head is to the man's testicles. Could be potentially horrific.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I can’t see anyone thinking leapfrogging him would be fine. It’s still invading his personal space. Same with running through his legs, though that action doesn’t come with a very real threat of injury.

I dunno, ODB (brilliant), the bigger they are, the harder they fall. A fall for a gangly guy like him could well result in injury and the fall would surely be more likely given his legs are what holds him up.

sabat wrote: »

There's not one person here who doesn't think it was a really sh1tty thing to do and that the kids responsible deserve a kick up the hole. What they do have an issue with is describing it as a hate-motivated assault, ie that they should be brought before a court to face a possible prison sentence. That's just ridiculous.

100%

nothing id like to see more than the little sh1ts responsible for this and every one of their ilk responsible for many of the streets around dublin being unpleasant places to be get a right good shock to straighten them out

but not especially because of the identity of the victim in this one instance

and i bet if there was a serious and effective initiative against low level ASB in towns and cities there'd be posters on the other side of this argument wringing their hands and projecting all sorts of horrible opinions on anyone supporting it

care about this type of incident or dont.

dont hang your biases on it but then get all scweamy when others do the same.