Gemma not taking enforced retirement too well

Stephen15 wrote: »

So you are saying that crime should be punished differently depending on the motive for the crime. So put this scenario in front of you an Irish person is attacked by another Irish person for whatever motive but not a racial one. A Muslim person is attacked by an Irish person because that he/she is a Muslim and the attacker dosen't like Muslims.

For arguments sake both victims receive the same injuries and both are severely traumatised by the incidents the same amount. You believe the perpetrator of the prejuidice motivated attack should be given a more severe sentence then the perpetrator of the non prejudice motivated attack even though both commited the same attack just with a different motive.

I do not agree with that I believe sentences should be dished out fairly and equally based on the severity of the damage inflicted regardless of motive. People should be punished based on their actions not their thoughts or emotions. Also I want to see more severe punishments for crimes regardless of motive. I support the death penalty for the most heinous crimes and would like to see a three strikes policy for the more serious crimes like assault, robbery etc.

So you don’t believe that there is any difference between self-defense, manslaughter and murder in the first degree? All of which end up with you killing someone, but it matters if you were acting in self defense, or acting on impulse, or had the whole thing planned out.

davedanon

"and a death cult followed by millions of people around the world."

And there you have it. Right, that's me done. Not wasting anymore time arguing with a bunch of bigoted ideologues. Love to all, people.

SoundsRight wrote: »

Nobody is denying those attacks happened, stop being a drama queen. But they're a drop in the ocean compared to what we face from their side. There's no real comparison between a handful of far-right loonies and a death cult followed by millions of people around the world.

But they *were* Christians?

doylefe wrote: »

So a black gang attack a Garda and slash his face with a knife, the response of a Boards moderator is to claim that the video is "a dodgy video that could have been edited by anyone" and attempts to shut down any discussion on the racial background of the perpetrators.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=110940104#post110940104

Then in this case because the alleged perpetrators are white and the alleged victim is Muslim, we have several moderators pilling in claiming without any evidence whatsoever that this is a hate crime, despite the fact that the video we've seen could easily have been fabricated or "edited" just like in the case of the assaulted Garda.

I guess one case serves a narrative and the other doesn't.

So you (plural) are losing an argument here and therefore bring in the other stuff. It's like talking to children. Many of the people on the other side of the argument in this thread dont answer reasoned and valid questions and instead repeated;ly revert to whataboutism. It speaks volumes about your position if you cannot defend it without bringing in all the worlds problems.

That's all fine if that's how you want to behave but it leads to very boring discussions with you all. Either you know what you're standing up for or you haven't a clue.But best of luck to you.

Stephen15

Overheal wrote: »

So you don’t believe that there is any difference between self-defense, manslaughter and murder in the first degree? All of which end up with you killing someone, but it matters if you were acting in self defense, or acting on impulse, or had the whole thing planned out.

No they are different crimes that's not what I said. What I said was the crime should be punished not the motive a murder is murder no matter what the motive is whether it be drug debt, an intense dislike of someone or a random attack they should be given a life sentence regardless or perhaps people who commit multiple murders should be given the death penalty.

I was trying not to use extreme examples but I don't see the difference between a racially motivated murder and a drug debt motivated murder both are still murders and both should be severely punished.

I believe strongly in tougher sentences and I think we should be pushing for the toughest sentence deemed reasonable for crimes committed. For example if you believe that a prejudice motivated crime should be given a 5 year sentence and a non prejudice motivated crime which causes the same amount of damage a 3 year sentence. I think both should be given a 5 year sentence not both given a 3 year sentence.

It's nothing to do with racism as for example I don't agree with jurisdictions which punish the murder or assault of a police officer more severely than an ordinary civilian.

batgoat

Erm, Stephen you are aware that motivation affects the conviction of most crimes, right? People face harsher or more lenient sentences based on what motivated the crime. But you only seem to care when it's a hate crime.

Stephen15 wrote: »

No they are different crimes that's not what I said. What I said was the crime should be punished not the motive a murder is murder no matter what the motive is whether it be drug debt, an intense dislike of someone or a random attack they should be given a life sentence regardless or perhaps people who commit multiple murders should be given the death penalty.

So a murder in self defense. We shoudln;t consider the motive??? :rolleyes:

Woodsie1

cookie1977 wrote: »

So a murder in self defense. We shoudln;t consider the motive??? :rolleyes:

Would it not be manslaughter if acting in self defence?

Stephen15

batgoat wrote: »

Erm, Stephen you are aware that motivation affects the conviction of most crimes, right? People face harsher or more lenient sentences based on what motivated the crime. But you only seem to care when it's a hate crime.

And I do not agree with that however if a prejudice crime motivated has a worse impact through a on the victim through a victim impact statement than a similar but non prejudice motivated crime then a harsher sentence should be given becuase it had a worse impact. In a similar manner that stealing someones might have a worse impact on someone than stealing a phone from a shop.

Woodsie1 wrote: »

Would it not be manslaughter if acting in self defense?

Depends on the motive., But according to Stephen15 we're not allowed to consider it.

Woodsie1

cookie1977 wrote: »

Depends on the motive., But according to Stephen15 we're not allowed to consider it.

You cant murder someone in self defence,murder is pre-meditated.

Stephen15 wrote: »

No they are different crimes that's not what I said. What I said was the crime should be punished not the motive a murder is murder no matter what the motive is whether it be drug debt, an intense dislike of someone or a random attack they should be given a life sentence regardless or perhaps people who commit multiple murders should be given the death penalty.

I was trying not to use extreme examples but I don't see the difference between a racially motivated murder and a drug debt motivated murder both are still murders and both should be severely punished.

I believe strongly in tougher sentences and I think we should be pushing for the toughest sentence deemed reasonable for crimes committed. For example if you believe that a prejudice motivated crime should be given a 5 year sentence and a non prejudice motivated crime which causes the same amount of damage a 3 year sentence. I think both should be given a 5 year sentence not both given a 3 year sentence.

It's nothing to do with racism as for example I don't agree with jurisdictions which punish the murder or assault of a police officer more severely than an ordinary civilian.

... do you realize you’re arguing from both ends? “No they are different crimes” “they are the same crimes because they have the same outcome”

Woodsie1 wrote: »

You cant murder someone in self defence,murder is pre-meditated.

No discussion permitted on that from Stephen's point of view. Cannot consider motive he said!

[Deleted User]

cookie1977 wrote: »

So a murder in self defense. We shoudln;t consider the motive??? :rolleyes:

Pretty certain that technically, self defense can't be murder. It's manslaughter. Murder is premeditated, manslaughter is not.

Open to correction on that.

Deleted User wrote: »

Pretty certain that technically, self defense can't be murder. It's manslaughter. Murder is premeditated, manslaughter is not.

Open to correction on that.

There are degrees of murder but Stephen doesn't clarify his thoughts on that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder#Degrees_of_murder
He just says we cannot consider motive period.

Stephen15

cookie1977 wrote: »

Depends on the motive., But according to Stephen15 we're not allowed to consider it.

Murder and manslaughter are two different crimes so nothing to do with motive. I think you might be confusing intent with motive. The way your carrying on you'd swear I think racially motivated crimes shouldn't be punished at all.

Stephen15 wrote: »

Murder and manslaughter are two different crimes so nothing to do with motive. I think you might be confusing intent with motive. The way your carrying on you'd swear I think racially motivated crimes shouldn't be punished at all.

Good question. I thought you said a crime is a crime and shoudl not be punished differentl:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=111034449&postcount=2626
"I do not agree with that I believe sentences should be dished out fairly and equally based on the severity of the damage inflicted regardless of motive. People should be punished based on their actions not their thoughts or emotions."

Woodsie1 wrote: »

You cant murder someone in self defence,murder is pre-meditated.

Not according to stephen15: all outcomes are the same, motive be damned.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Both. The crime should be punished and if there an added bias motivation then punish them more.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Yes.
If a crime has a bias motivation against a minority group or a woman then yes I do believe it should have a harsher sentence yes..

What Joey is advocating here is a 2-tier justice system, with women and ethnic minorities getting more protection from the law than white men.
That in itself is a racist and sexist proposition.
Its important to point out that not everyone agrees this would be a good thing.
Even so, I'm aware there is a strong push going on at the moment from various NGO groups in Ireland to change our laws to suit this agenda.
Of course some types of motivation, such as self-defence have a bearing on things. But that is a total red herring, because what he's talking about is an extra punishment for the exact same crime, based only on the race or sex of the victim.

SoundsRight wrote: »

Gardai have also came out with a 'stupid statement', as you would put it. ""The incidents are not believed to be racially motivated".
https://www.rte.ie/news/dublin/2019/0820/1069916-dundrum-assault-investigation/

Now the above is a good example of how joey sees things panning out.
According to the Gardai, this gang was going around Dundrum randomly assaulting and/or robbing people. One of the victims happened to be a Muslim.

...a number of incidents including public order and theft that occurred in Dundrum, in Dublin, at the weekend. The incidents, involving a group of male and female youths, occurred on Main Street in the town on Sunday afternoon.

Thankfully the Gardai are treating all the assaults equally seriously.
But when Joey's racist new "hate crime" laws come in, the assault on the Muslim will be treated (and punished) much more seriously than the assault on the native Irish person.

Eric Cartman

doylefe wrote: »

So a black gang attack a Garda and slash his face with a knife, the response of a Boards moderator is to claim that the video is "a dodgy video that could have been edited by anyone" and attempts to shut down any discussion on the racial background of the perpetrators.
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=110940104#post110940104

Then in this case because the alleged perpetrators are white and the alleged victim is Muslim, we have several moderators pilling in claiming without any evidence whatsoever that this is a hate crime, despite the fact that the video we've seen could easily have been fabricated or "edited" just like in the case of the assaulted Garda.

I guess one case serves a narrative and the other doesn't.

Sure thats how this forum is now ,

Burden of proof that any violent crime was motivated by ‘hate’ : perpetrator was white or victim was not and you assume the perp to be white

Burden of proof that non white / travellers did something : full names, addresses, photos and a 23&me dna test :pac:

At this point any thread about a violent crime with ‘mod warning’ in the header, I already know it wasnt a white settled person did it before I come in the thread.

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

What Joey is advocating here is a 2-tier justice system, with women and ethnic minorities getting more protection from the law than white men.
That in itself is a racist and sexist proposition.
Its important to point out that not everyone agrees this would be a good thing.

No what Joey is saying is that crimes motivated by hate should be punished more. entirely reasonable to me.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

No what Joey is saying is that crimes motivated by hate should be punished more. entirely reasonable to me.

That gang wandering around assaulting people was motivated by hate. But the Gardai said it was not racially motivated.
If it was one standalone assault on the Muslim girl, they would not be able to say that, yet it would be the exact same assault.

Joey wants to establish a hierarchy of victimhood, with "ethnic" lesbians at the top, and white hetero men on the lowest rung.

recedite wrote: »

That gang wandering around assaulting people was motivated by hate. But the Gardai said it was not racially motivated.
If it was one standalone assault on the Muslim girl, they would not be able to say that, yet it would be the exact same assault.

Joey wants to establish a hierarchy of victimhood, with "ethnic" lesbians at the top, and white hetero men on the lowest rung.

Where did you read that the Gardai said that as the Irish Times is reporting they are investiagting it as a hate crime:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/garda-investigating-dundrum-assault-do-not-believe-it-is-racially-motivated-1.3992021

Is it the case that if you say it then it must be true?

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

That gang wandering around assaulting people was motivated by hate. But the Gardai said it was not racially motivated.
If it was one standalone assault on the Muslim girl, they would not be able to say that, yet it would be the exact same assault.

Joey wants to establish a hierarchy of victimhood, with "ethnic" lesbians at the top, and white hetero men on the lowest rung.

I'm going to assume that you are not actually that thick and understand perfectly what I meant.

cookie1977 wrote: »

Where did you read that the Gardai said that as the Irish Times is reporting they are investiagting it as a hate crime:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/garda-investigating-dundrum-assault-do-not-believe-it-is-racially-motivated-1.3992021

Is it the case that if you say it then it must be true?

Did you read your own link?

In fairness, the paragraph quoting Jopepha Madigan appears at first sight to contradict the rest of the article, but if you read carefully, you'll see the Minister is just jumping on the virtue signalling bandwagon. Her contribution to the article is disingenuous.

recedite wrote: »

Did you read your own link?

In fairness, the paragraph quoting Jopepha Madigan appears at first sight to contradict the rest of the article, but if you read carefully, you'll see the Minister is just jumping on the virtue signalling bandwagon. Her contribution to the article is disingenuous.

"Gardaí are still trying to determine the reason behind an assault on a young woman in Dundrum, but said they do not believe it is racially motivated."

"Do not believe" isn't the same as "is not". Maybe (like Stephen has said previously) we shoudl wait for the investigation to be completed.

cookie1977 wrote: »

we shoudl wait for the investigation to be completed.

Of course, but the point is, the Gardai can say at this early stage they don't believe it was racially motivated because of the other assaults nearby by the same gang. Assaults which the media are not very interested in reporting on.

But if it was only the Muslim girl assaulted, and Joeys proposed new "hate crime" laws were in place, then the Gardai would have no choice but to elevate it to a more serious crime. The very fact that she was a Muslim and her hijab was ripped would guarantee that.

recedite wrote: »

Of course, but the point is, the Gardai can say at this early stage they don't believe it was racially motivated because of the other assaults nearby by the same gang. Assaults which the media are not very interested in reporting on.

But if it was only the Muslim girl assaulted, and Joeys proposed new "hate crime" laws were in place, then the Gardai would have no choice but to elevate it to a more serious crime. The very fact that she was a Muslim and her hijab was ripped would guarantee that.

It could just as easily be the case that the gang were randomly targeting people until they saw the hijab and then targeted her for that specifically. No? We can all speculate.

The hijab targeting is of interest to the media in light of Gemma's comments. I dont blame the media for highlighting the story.

cookie1977 wrote: »

It could just as easily be the case that the gang were randomly targeting people until they saw the hijab and then targeted her for that specifically. No? We can all speculate.

Its a remote possibility. As I said, if Joeys proposed laws were in place, the Gardai would be under pressure to default to this possibility, unless there was proof to the contrary.
And you can see from that IT article that a top level govt. minister already got onto the Gardai and tried to put pressure on them to say it was being investigated as racially motivated crime. For her own reasons - of pure political grandstanding.

cookie1977 wrote: »

The hijab targeting is of interest to the media in light of Gemma's comments. I dont blame the media for highlighting the story.

"Of interest" maybe. But do you agree now that any attempt to link the assault to Gemma was wrong?