UK cops make first arrests for 'hate crime' against emo sub-culture

[eddie]

I imagine there will be more arrests in the future, sadly. Not exactly sure what this "emo" sub-culture is all about, other then they have a "goth" look to themselves. Sad to hear that a 20 year old girl was kicked and stomped to death for having a goth look back in 2007.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/11/17706049-uk-cops-make-first-arrests-for-hate-crime-against-emo-sub-culture

Mean while back in Iraq, if you are caught running around with this "emo" look, they stone you to death!

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/03/10/10634539-iraqi-teens-stoned-to-death-for-wearing-emo-clothes?lite

[Herr-Berbunch]

About time, maybe this would have stopped all the sick jokes when Rod Hull fell off the roof.

[Suvs]

About time, maybe this would have stopped all the sick jokes when Rod Hull fell off the roof.

This is possibly the best one-liner i've ever seen on this forum, Bravo! :haha:

[Herr-Berbunch]

Thank you, I'm here all week.

It is quite a serious subject though but dont know if I'd list it alongside other 'hate' crimes.

[eddie]

Have people who are in this emo group been violent? Or is it just an alternative life style? Like I said, don't know much about them.

[Oberon]

Have people who are in this emo group been violent? Or is it just an alternative life style? Like I said, don't know much about them.

Not generally. Emo's are generally more likely to hurt themselves than to hurt others due to a sense of low self-esteem, however like all genres there are those who are not quite within it, and may perhaps seek to hurt others in vengence for their situation.

It's hard to categorise Emos because there are a lot of similarities with parts of the Goth genre and the two are often mistaken for each other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emo

When it boils down to it though, it depends on the individual, just like any category, you can have 'Happy Goths', and sad 'Jocks' and god alone knows what else. If a person is going to be violent, they'll be violent no matter what they are. :03:


In terms of this law though, it's likely in place because there has been a lot of discrimination and hate directed towards Goths and Emos because they are relatively easy targets because of their differences to the average person, physically and emotionally they are the antithesis to the 'strong tough bad' mentality in society that rules in the early years of ones life, particularly in the inner cities, and...if I'm honest, part of Goth and Emo life has evolved around the hate that has been put upon them, however this does not make it right, nor does it excuse the suffering that some of them have had put upon them, that has, indeed, lead to suicides because of a despair that overwhelms them.

It's the old adage though, people get picked on because they are different to society, be they Goth, Emo, Steampunk, Fat, Geek (although there's a cause to say that in the age of the internet the Geek has undergone a transformation into a more accepted social character) or just not willing to follow the crowd. If you're a little bit different, you stand out, and you get noticed and punished for it. No amount of laws are going to change that, just like bullying will never be eliminated from schools, despite the best attempts of people, the only thing you can do is try to get through it. :yep:

[eddie]

Thanks for the info Oberon!

[Tribesman]

About time, maybe this would have stopped all the sick jokes when Rod Hull fell off the roof.

Those jokes did get a good reception.

[Herr-Berbunch]

Those jokes did get a good reception.
:har:

[Jimbuna]

Those jokes did get a good reception.

Aha :)

[JU_88]

I dont get it, arent all unprovoked acts of violence a hate crime? why do some groups need special treatment?

[Tribesman]

I dont get it, arent all unprovoked acts of violence a hate crime?
Its very simple, if I walk down the street and punch the next person I see with ginger hair the motive is very different from walking down the street and hitting any person on the street.

[Betonov]

Its very simple, if I walk down the street and punch the next person I see with ginger hair the motive is very different from walking down the street and hitting any person on the street.

Yep, in the first case you're a wanker and in the second you're a jackass

[Feuer Frei!]

why do some groups need special treatment?

They would only get special treatment, as you call it because the special people that give out special treatment are...
special people. You can call them all sorts of names. Generally negative ones.

[JU_88]

Its very simple, if I walk down the street and punch the next person I see with ginger hair the motive is very different from walking down the street and hitting any person on the street.

Or if there wasnt a guy with ginger hair and you were still looking to ruin somebodies day, you might just have to 'randomly' pick on something else, maybe someone shoes / glasses / haircut / face / body language. Should they all be hate crimes too?
I doubt too many of these animals wake up in morning and plots to wage a war on Emos or a Ginger people all day, its far more likey they just go out looking for trouble and pick of the first thing they notice, which in all probability is likley to be something or someone that looks a bit different somehow.

Point is, that to go and abuse Anyone who did you no wrong is an act of hatred, no matter what the assailants 'reasoning' is behind it. Their reasoning isnt even going to be reasonable, because there is no possible justification for such an act, so why should we even care about 'why' they did it?
They did it because they are an A-hole, catagorizing it as something else based on the victims attire/hair/race/gender/culture seems a bit daft, what is it supposed to accomplish exactly? the scentancing is still the same anyway...

[Tribesman]

the scentancing is still the same anyway...
That smells a bit iffy.

Point is, that to go and abuse Anyone who did you no wrong is an act of hatred, no matter what the assailants 'reasoning' is behind it.
Yes, but the point is the "reasoning".

[JU_88]

That smells a bit iffy.


Yes, but the point is the "reasoning".

Aplogies for the typo
No i dont agree, the point is the act.

[Tribesman]

No i dont agree, the point is the act.
With many criminal acts the "reasoning" or lack thereof is fundamental to the legal process and the possible outcome which will be handed down.

[Jimbuna]

Criminals will often try to swap 'reasoning' for 'mitigation'.

[Tribesman]

Criminals will often try to swap 'reasoning' for 'mitigation'.
Pick a news crime story from GT, see how often all sorts of people will argue mitigating factors.

[HundertzehnGustav]

In England, a hate crime is defined by prosecutors as “a criminal offense motivated by prejudice based on a person's disability, race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.”
:D:D

so are these emo people disabled? like, maybe mentally disabled?
thy are a same race, religion, gender and sexual orientation are appearently npot a factor.

so emoes have a handycap.

or so the article suggests.

:D

Police department public relations fail...:rotfl2:

(i am not an emo, and know none, have never met one. just poking a stick at the british police)

[Feuer Frei!]

No i dont agree, the point is the act.
Unfortunately, before the act comes the reason. So the point Tribesman makes still stands.

[Tribesman]

so are these emo people disabled? like, maybe mentally disabled?
thy are a same race, religion, gender and sexual orientation are appearently npot a factor.

2003. It covers all factors in 4 and specifies that it is not limited to factors listed in 2.

Police department public relations fail...:rotfl2:
Gustav reading fail

[HundertzehnGustav]

well then i just didnt get it.

reading okay, interpretatuion fail.

I am officially too dim for dis.. :D

[JU_88]

Unfortunately, before the act comes the reason. So the point Tribesman makes still stands.

The reason isn't a crime, the act is.
Sorry, but I firmly belive and uprovoked attack is an unprovoked attack,
sure take into account the victims vunerability in terms of age, physical strength, personality etc. But not the clothes he is wearing, that is just bloody stupid.

[AVGWarhawk]

Sorry, but I firmly belive and uprovoked attack is an unprovoked attack,
sure take into account the victims vunerability in terms of age, physical strength, personality etc. But not the clothes he is wearing, that is just bloody stupid.

Then we can say the person conducting the unprovoked attack is Emophobic?

[Tribesman]

The reason isn't a crime, the act is.

Not really.
If I stick a knife in six different people and they all die what are the selection of different crimes or non crimes due to the different reasons for the same action?

[JU_88]

Not really.
If I stick a knife in six different people and they all die what are the selection of different crimes or non crimes due to the different reasons for the same action?

If you stick a knife in six different people, who did you nothing to you.
what difference does your 'reason' make when your reason what ever it is, is not obviously not going to be what society and the law considers 'reasonable'.

if you did it because the persons: ethnicity/Race/religion/sexuallity/disability (and now alternative culture), its a hate crime, fine, but if it was for any other reason, e.g the person was old/young, fat/thin, ugly/pretty, homeless/rich, male/female or maybe just wearing a shirt you found offensive (could simply be a football teams kit), of a certain profession ,had a certain regional accent, political allignment etc etc..... none of those are 'hate crime' as far as i am aware.

Imo Having the law treat certain wider groups abit differently is not a very clever way to build an equal and fair society.... and if anything, it just helps generate more division, resentment and hatred.

[Tribesman]

JU88 just take a moment to think about what I wrote, then try again.

[JU_88]

JU88 just take a moment to think about what I wrote, then try again.

Assuming you did not know them, they had not provoked you by way of their actions (since that is the scenario we have been talking about in this thread - unprevoked attack, not anything else) Im seeing six counts of murder, what else am I missing? and If im hypothetically prosecuting you, what else would I really need to know?

And likewise, feel free to re-read my last post and tell me if you can understand what Im getting at or not.

[Tribesman]

Im seeing six counts of murder, what else am I missing?
Lots.
You are assuming only one reason, read again exactly what was written.

And likewise, feel free to re-read my last post and tell me if you can understand what Im getting at or not.

I understand what you are getting at, but you seem to be getting there by missing the important steps

[JU_88]

Lots.
You are assuming only one reason, read again exactly what was written.

Not quite, I was actually disregarding the reasons altogether as not all crimes have a clear or rational motive, and no, Ive read it twice, thought about it twice and now Im responding twice and I have said all I have to say on it - unless you want to elaborate or give examples on why your reasons should effect the type of charges brought against you (along the lines of hate crime or not)


I understand what you are getting at, but you seem to be getting there by missing the important steps

Cool, but then please take the trouble to point them out and I might understand you better - thanks.

[Tribesman]

Not quite, I was actually disregarding the reasons altogether as not all crimes have a clear or rational motive, and no, Ive read it twice, thought about it twice and now Im responding twice and I have said all I have to say on it - unless you want to elaborate or give examples on why your reasons should effect the type of charges brought against you (along the lines of hate crime or not)

You read it twice?
You wasn't disregarding the reasons, you were simply applying one reason which wasn't stated
Did you not read that the act can be different crimes or that the act can be no crime at all?
It all depends on the reason for the act, the only act described was death caused by someone with a knife, which covers quite a few crimes and some acts which are not crimes.
It all relates to the line you wrote.
The reason isn't a crime, the act is.
which is not correct.

[JU_88]

You read it twice?
You wasn't disregarding the reasons, you were simply applying one reason which wasn't stated
Did you not read that the act can be different crimes or that the act can be no crime at all?
It all depends on the reason for the act, the only act described was death caused by someone with a knife, which covers quite a few crimes and some acts which are not crimes.
It all relates to the line you wrote.

which is not correct.

No, I clearly told you i disregarded the reasons, but you seem to reject that and issist that your assumption was right all along.
So it seems you are effectively implying that im either lying or that you understand what my brain is thinking better than I do myself? if either case is true we cannot really have a sensible discussion, can we?

Secondly you are still not giving me any specific examples in regards to your 'knife riddle' So ill try and fill in the blanks....
The only way it might not be a crime at all - to kill someone with a knife, is if it was accidental or neglegant, The only ways it might possibly be considered a lesser crime such as 'man slaughter' is if it was in self defence, or perhaps carried out with a medically certified unsound state of mind.

Now correct me if Im wrong, but I'm assuming you are not including any of the above in your knife riddle, as we are obviously (in this instance) talking about thugs who pick on someone minding their own business and for whatever reason assault them.
We are not talking about a crime where a person harms another and all cirumstances leading up to it are completely unknown - are we?

When I said "the reason isnt a crime, the act is" I was talking about this particular type of attack. I can only hope that you are applying what I have said in the context of what surrounded it, such as:


Point is, that to go and abuse Anyone who did you no wrong is an act of hatred, no matter what the assailants 'reasoning' is behind it. Their reasoning isnt even going to be reasonable, because there is no possible justification for such an act, so why should we even care about 'why' they did it?



The reason isn't a crime, the act is.
Sorry, but I firmly believe an unprovoked attack is an unprovoked attack,



Assuming you did not know them, they had not provoked you by way of their actions (since that is the scenario we have been talking about in this thread - unprevoked attack, not anything else).


I think I made it clear enough....

[Tribesman]

No, I clearly told you i disregarded the reasons
You cannot disregard the reasons when your claim centers on reasons as does the question you are addressing.

The only way it might not be a crime at all - to kill someone with a knife, is if it was accidental or neglegant, The only ways it might possibly be considered a lesser crime such as 'man slaughter' is if it was in self defence, or perhaps carried out with a medically certified unsound state of mind.

Well done. You got most of them.


Now correct me if Im wrong, but I'm assuming you are not including any of the above in your knife riddle, as we are obviously (in this instance) talking about thugs who pick on someone minding their own business and for whatever reason assault them.

No, we are talking about your claim that the act alone makes something a crime and that the reason is irrelevant.
Read the posts you are argueing against.

[JU_88]

You cannot disregard the reasons when your claim centers on reasons as does the question you are addressing.


Well done. You got most of them.



No, we are talking about your claim that the act alone makes something a crime and that the reason is irrelevant.
Read the posts you are argueing against.

You are still blissfully ignoring the fact that you have isolated my claim from its intended context and you have re-applied it generally.

Well yeah..., of course the relevance of the motive/reasoning varies for different types of crimes, but we were not talking about any old crimes were we? Last time I checked, we were talking specifically about the type of hate crime along the lines of the recent Emo attack in Manchester.

Ill start over:
A person of clinically sound mind, has feelings of aggression, resentment and hatred, towards a stranger and by-stander which can only be attributed to something superficial about that person.

Those feelings are not a crime punishable by law, where as assaulting them is.
So in this specific scenario, I dont see how the attackers reasoning/motive, should really effect the type of charges brought against them.
It doesnt make any sense to me that the 'Hatred' aspect is only acknowledged by the law if it is directed at certain traits while not at others which are similar or comparable.
Even if its based on minority traits which are more commonly targeted - that doesnt automatically make it right and it certainly doesnt make it equal.
I believe that treating minorities 'differently' even if its with positive intentions, sends a bad message to society as a whole and helps create more seperation in the long run. it just re-enforces a predjudiced persons ideology that, this or that person is indeed 'a bit different.'

Your turn.

[Tribesman]

You are still blissfully ignoring the fact that you have isolated my claim from its intended context and you have re-applied it generally.

Follow the process.
You objected to someone agreeing with a point that was made, that is the point you are trying to argue against, I have not re-applied it generally, you simply failed to notice the actual point you objected to.

Well yeah..., of course the relevance of the motive/reasoning varies for different types of crimes, but we were not talking about any old crimes were we?
Yes we are, since the reason in this only reflects the differing levels of punishment meted out for similar actions. Same as with lots of crimes, the intention and reasoning make all the difference when it comes to how the law deals with it.

It doesnt make any sense to me that the 'Hatred' aspect is only acknowledged by the law if it is directed at certain traits while not at others which are similar or comparable.

As I already pointed out to Gustav, its all covered in 4.

[JU_88]

Follow the process
Which process? the one you are seeing or the one I am seeing?


You objected to someone agreeing with a point that was made, that is the point you are trying to argue against, I have not re-applied it generally, you simply failed to notice the actual point you objected to.

Where? show me... Here's a recap:


JU_88: Point is, that to go and abuse Anyone who did you no wrong is an act of hatred, no matter what the assailants 'reasoning' is behind it.
(Im talking about a specific type of crime, plus Id hope that given the thread topic, its pretty obvious what i am refering to)

Tribesman: Yes, but the point is the "reasoning".
(As far as Im concerned you are still talking about the specific type of crime, if not maybe you could have said so)

Frau: Unfortunately, before the act comes the reason. So the point Tribesman makes still stands.
(As far as Im concerned she is still talking about the specific type of crime)

JU_88: The reason isn't a crime, the act is.
(I am still talking about a specific type of crime, since that is where all this links back to)

Tribesman: Not really.
If I stick a knife in six different people and they all die what are the selection of different crimes or non crimes due to the different reasons for the same action?
(You are now painting a vastly more general scenario incuding self defence and accidents etc,)


So where is this point that i misinterpreted?
Im guessing your idea of one action is that "I stick a knife into someone",while that could be true, do we not treat a knife attack and a knife accident as seperate acts? I could argue that they are, based on the fact that no reason, motive or precise cause would likley be required to identify which one it was (from eye witnesses point of view)
A defintiion of action is "The fact or process of doing something" So i suppose it depends on just how much of the actual 'knife attack process' you want to include under that definition. But i would include a bit more than just 'a hand on one end of the knife and a ribcage on the other'.

[Sailor Steve]

Well done. You got most of them.
What are you, the shoolmaster? You sure do like to talk down to people.

[Tribesman]

What are you, the shoolmaster?
Can I correct your post with red ink then?:D

Where? show me... Here's a recap:

Why are some of my posts missing?
The fundamentals bit in particular.

What you are missing in the theme is the extra degree of intent, it works like a mitigating factor but in the opposite direction when it comes down to handing down a term.