Hate crime? Really?

ohnonotgmail · 10-05-2019 11:48am

Hector Savage wrote: »

(b) causes another to believe on reasonable grounds that he or she is likely immediately to be subjected to any such force or impact,

without the consent of the other.

Bollox, sure anyone could say that so about passing cars ffs!!

I gave you the full link but you clearly did not bother your arse to click on it. This is the next bit of the act. I think you can describe driving a car as "acceptable in the ordinary conduct of daily life". You are arguing from a position of ignorance. Resolve that problem and you might start posting intelligently.

(3) No such offence is committed if the force or impact, not being intended or likely to cause injury, is in the circumstances such as is generally acceptable in the ordinary conduct of daily life and the defendant does not know or believe that it is in fact unacceptable to the other person.

riffmongous · 10-05-2019 11:51am

Hector Savage wrote: »

My understanding of the article is he cleared her, didn't touch her.
Didn't verbally abuse or intimidate her.
Now if you are telling me that's assault then I think you're the one with the problem understanding what assault is.

Again, very dangerous road we go down if this is the definition of assault.
What about calling someone "fatty" ?
or speccy four eyes ? is that hate speech to those of us visually impaired ?

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

weldoninhio · 10-05-2019 11:58am

Irene Grumpy Crystal wrote: »

Where was that said?

This is about a person with dwarfism being leapfrogged over - what are you on about? Or are you making stuff up in your quest to show how lacking in empathy you are?

He leapfrogged over her out of the blue, which would *obviously* give her a fright. She was on her own, unable to defend herself, and oh yeah... she has dwarfism, making it extra difficult to defend herself, and it was the sole reason she was targeted. So you know full well it wasn't just a standard, minor incident.

I don't know that it was a hate crime but i really don't care what some rag or sh1tty website calls it. It was a rotten thing to do to someone, and the edgy downplaying of it (really kills some folk to show empathy) is also rotten.

I was replying to another poster. If you don't know the context i'd advise reading the thread. :rolleyes:

weldoninhio · 10-05-2019 12:01pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

You dont need to touch somebody for it to be assault. this has been gone over multiple times on this thread alone. It is not that hard to understand. I have bolded the relevant part of the Act.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/act/26/enacted/en/print#sec2

causes another to believe on reasonable grounds that he or she is likely immediately to be subjected to any such force or impact,

without the consent of the other.

She didn't notice anything until he landed, after he landed he walked away so why would she believe, on reasonable grounds, that he was going to subject her to anything when he was walking away from her??

weldoninhio · 10-05-2019 12:02pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why are you so desperate to avoid answering?

It's in the post you quoted.

Here it is again Your point is nonsense.

riffmongous · 10-05-2019 12:05pm

weldoninhio wrote: »

She didn't notice anything until he landed, after he landed he walked away so why would she believe, on reasonable grounds, that he was going to subject her to anything when he was walking away from her??

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

ohnonotgmail · 10-05-2019 12:05pm

weldoninhio wrote: »

She didn't notice anything until he landed, after he landed he walked away so why would she believe, on reasonable grounds, that he was going to subject her to anything when he was walking away from her??

If somebody landed in front of me after jumping over me i would assume that being attacked was a possibility. It is not a normal thing to do no matter how much you and others try to normalise it.

and just in case you didnt bother to read the article your description is inaccurate. he did walk away after jumping over her but then turned around and walked back towards her.

"One nudged the other, pointed to me and they both laughed. As a little person, this behaviour is sadly part of my everyday experience. As a teacher, I have a deep yearning to make these moments educational and want to help people learn that it is unkind and unjust to make derogatory remarks about people with dwarfism, but I’ve become accustomed to sensing when it is safe and unsafe to do so. I took a deep breath and kept walking.

"It seemed to happen in slow motion. A whoosh, followed by a thud.

"One of the boys landed in front of me. He had jumped over me, leap-frogged over my head from behind. I couldn’t believe it.

"I couldn’t make sense of it. He walked to the end of the road, turned around and walked past me again with a frightening grin. I was furious and scared."

weldoninhio · 10-05-2019 12:09pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

If somebody landed in front of me after jumping over me i would assume that being attacked was a possibility. It is not a normal thing to do no matter how much you and others try to normalise it.

and just in case you didnt bother to read the article your description is inaccurate. he did walk away after jumping over her but then turned around and walked back towards her.

He walked to the end of the road. Then gave a "frightening grin" :rolleyes:

How Soon Is Now · 10-05-2019 12:10pm

weldoninhio wrote: »

He walked to the end of the road. Then gave a "frightening grin" :rolleyes:

It was frightening though!!

ohnonotgmail · 10-05-2019 12:16pm

weldoninhio wrote: »

He walked to the end of the road. Then gave a "frightening grin" :rolleyes:

Your continuing internet hardman act is very tedious indeed.

AndrewJRenko · 10-05-2019 12:41pm

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?

AndrewJRenko · 10-05-2019 12:43pm

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.

10-05-2019 1:01pm

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

Deebles McBeebles · 10-05-2019 1:10pm

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?

10-05-2019 1:11pm

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 · 10-05-2019 1:18pm

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 · 10-05-2019 1:23pm

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 · 10-05-2019 2:06pm

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.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 10-05-2019 2:58pm

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”.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 10-05-2019 3:08pm

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.

Deebles McBeebles · 10-05-2019 3:20pm

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.

AndrewJRenko · 10-05-2019 3:22pm

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.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 10-05-2019 3:26pm

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.

Deebles McBeebles · 10-05-2019 3:28pm

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 · 10-05-2019 3:32pm

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.

10-05-2019 4:09pm

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

10-05-2019 4:11pm

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 · 10-05-2019 4:12pm

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 · 10-05-2019 4:13pm

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

10-05-2019 4:13pm

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

10-05-2019 4:17pm

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.

10-05-2019 4:20pm

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 · 10-05-2019 4:20pm

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 · 10-05-2019 4:22pm

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.

Deebles McBeebles · 10-05-2019 4:25pm

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.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 10-05-2019 4:26pm

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 · 10-05-2019 4:27pm

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.

Deebles McBeebles · 10-05-2019 4:28pm

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.

10-05-2019 4:29pm

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.

10-05-2019 4:31pm

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

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.

seeing as i had to watch him tripping himself up for years, i can guarantee its a risk

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 10-05-2019 4:31pm

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.

When I read posts by internet hard chaws, I just remind myself that talk is cheap. If they were mouthing off in the same way to, say, colleagues in the office (which is very possible, I’ve certainly encountered such bullshíters), they’d probably mostly be met with heavy-lidded disdain and amusement, nobody taking them seriously but just letting them gab on all the same. Sure, they only make themselves look bad. And nobody believes their bullshït either.

10-05-2019 4:39pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

When I read posts by internet hard chaws, I just remind myself that talk is cheap. If they were mouthing off in the same way to, say, colleagues in the office (which is very possible, I’ve certainly encountered such bullshíters), they’d probably mostly be met with heavy-lidded disdain and amusement, nobody taking them seriously but just letting them gab on all the same. Sure, they only make themselves look bad. And nobody believes their bullshït either.

now

is this one of those posts you read about thats playing a man and not a ball?

tsk

AndrewJRenko · 10-05-2019 4:48pm

Hector Savage wrote: »

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

No, it's a hate crime if bias is a significant factor

http://enarireland.org/proposed-hate-crime-legislation/

What is your specific problem with identifying hate crimes as hate crimes?

10-05-2019 4:54pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

No, it's a hate crime if bias is a significant factor

http://enarireland.org/proposed-hate-crime-legislation/

What is your specific problem with identifying hate crimes as hate crimes?

is it?

"To date, the Government has failed to take steps to introduce it into law, leaving minorities in Ireland without protection."

so ...?

10-05-2019 4:54pm

AndrewJRenko wrote:

What is your specific problem with identifying hate crimes as hate crimes?

I think the issue is defining such incidents as hate crimes lessens the impact of the word. Like the bandying about of the word Nazi for anyone who is right leaning. Words lose meaning through misuse.

I wouldn't class this as a hate crime, I would class it as a very horrible and demeaning act.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 10-05-2019 4:57pm

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

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.

The fall and injury would likely happen to the person jumping over him. Unless, are you saying he’d fall over from somebody running through his legs? I guess he might but he wouldn’t have the full weight of somebody landing on top of him. Being tripped by somebody running through your legs would result more in a skinned knee type injury probably. Many people with dwarfism have ongoing skeletal issues that require operations and the full weight of a teenager landing on them could have dire consequences. It’s just not a good comparison whatever way you look at it.

Deleted User wrote: »

now

is this one of those posts you read about thats playing a man and not a ball?

tsk

Report it if you think it has crossed the line.

PCeeeee · 10-05-2019 5:02pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

No, it's a hate crime if bias is a significant factor

http://enarireland.org/proposed-hate-crime-legislation/

What is your specific problem with identifying hate crimes as hate crimes?

According to enaireland.

AndrewJRenko · 10-05-2019 5:03pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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

So presumably you don't agree with the legal distinction between paedophilia and rape, because there shouldn't be a separate category based on who it happens to, right?

BTW, hate crimes are not generally defined by 'who it happens to'. They are defined as motivated by hate of the victim's identity or background.

10-05-2019 5:07pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Report it if you think it has crossed the line.

nah there wasnt anything hateful about it

i think the propensity to focus on what an angle or an opinion or an argument says about the person making it has been a feature of the thread, tbh that does tend to place people with that propensity into a set that claims moral superiority without ever being able to appeal to anything more than vague or subjective handwaves towards ideals that nobody is under any obligation to share

the thread is asking the relevance of claiming this as a hate crime vs something youd not blink an eye at (terrorism vs gurrierism, nest pas) and the response has been not far off "what kind of animal even asks that?"

10-05-2019 5:11pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So presumably you don't agree with the legal distinction between paedophilia and rape, because there shouldn't be a separate category based on who it happens to, right?

BTW, hate crimes are not generally defined by 'who it happens to'. They are defined as motivated by hate of the victim's identity or background.

i dont agree that a relevant comparison is the distinction between paedophelia and rape, both of which are instances of sexual assault regardless of the identity of the victim. that is an embarrassing jump youve made and really now, cmon.

a gnat could shave with the thinness ofbyr other distinction but ive already asked you what consequence you seek for a crime designated a hate crime vs the same offence perpetrated on another victim

Hate crime? Really?

Comments