Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Breaking: Vehicle Plows into Pedestrians in London
The first report from the BBC:
A vehicle has struck pedestrians “leaving a number of casualties” in north London, police said. One person has been arrested following the incident on Seven Sisters Road in Finsbury Park.
Officers were called at 12.20 BST and are at the scene with other emergency services, the Metropolitan Police said. A London Ambulance Service spokesman said: “We have sent a number of resources to an incident in Seven Sisters Road.”
Early reports indicate that the vehicle struck people leaving the Finsbury Park mosque, which has been implicated in several terror incidents. It remains to be seen if this an attack of retribution.
Update from the BBC (6:50 pm ET):
Published in GeneralThe Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) said a van “intentionally” ran over worshippers. Many of the victims are believed to have just left evening prayers after breaking the Ramadan fast.
One eyewitness who lives in a flat on Seven Sisters Road told the BBC she saw people “shouting and screaming”.
“Everyone was shouting ‘a van’s hit people’.
“There was this white van stopped outside Finsbury Park Mosque that seems to have hit people who were coming out of the mosque after prayers finished.”
I’ve not seen that, could you link to you it?
Finsbury Park? Hmm. Remember this guy?
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/05/20/article-2634198-15301A22000005DC-434_634x439.jpg
Same mosque.
And Darren Osborne has been named as the attacker according to the Daily Telegraph.
Not only do I not have a link, but I don’t remember who said it. I try not to remember things like that to hold against people. Sometimes I do remember and in my mind it colors everything else they say, but this is not one of those cases.
Oh well then that makes wholesale murder of innocents okay…
No, no, no, Jamie. So long as they are Muslims, the wholesale murder of innocents is now called “counter-terrorism.” I learned it on this thread.
Huh?
Where exactly have people been advocating the murder of Muslim? I’m asking for specific examples here on Rico.
Anonymous sources were quoted. If it’s good enough for the press it should be good enough for you.
The closest I’ve seen is comments referencing the firebombing and nuclear bombings of WWII with the statement the we will need to adopt similar levels of brutality to defeat terrorism. One could argue whether the term “murder” technically applies in the context of warfare.
I’ve only seen it in a warfare context myself.
That’s what I was thinking too, perhaps the police have forensic evidence that suggests a rape or attempted rape took place, so they’re thinking that was the motive rather than “hate.” Does that make it a “love crime?”
As you say, the “hate crime” concept is bankrupt, it’s a horrific and dispicable crime regardless of the motive of the murderer.
If Ricochet had a decent search function that allowed me to search my own comments, I could probably find an example that i responded to.
Yeah, the search function is, shall we say, ineffectual?
Try this. Adapt search field as needed.
Geez guys. It’s not that hard. Here, I’ll do it for you.
If we want to stop all this jihadi terrorist nonsense, all we have to do is kill all the Muslims. We’ll need nukes to do it, because there’s a billion of them.
We’ll leave @zafar alive though and put him in a museum to be attended by handsome young men.
There, see how easy it is to find now? You’re welcome.
(Oh, you were speaking of someone’s saying it seriously? Can’t help you there.)
So you were the anonymous source all along. Any comments about that Russia thing?
I did not have sex with that woman, Vladimira Putina…
Ew.
This conversation has now officially jumped the shark.
My opinion on this issue has changed over time. I am starting to think there’s an analogy between the concept of hate crime and terrorism. Just as there’s a difference between premeditated murder and heat-of-the-moment murder. It seems like there’s a moral difference between, say, killing five bank employees in order to rob the vault, and killing five Jews leaving synagogue because they’re Jews in order to intimidate or drive out Jews. Should there be a legal difference to reflect that?
This is an intriguing point. I would be inclined to agree with this except that the definition of hate crime is so diffuse and has been extended to crimes that were likely just the garden-variety kind (though no less heinous). The crime that was the subject of the OP does seem to fit the narrower definition that I would endorse but some others that have been brought into that category do not. Also, the London crime does induce terror in the targeted population and seems to be ideologically motivated, so it qualifies as terrorism.
Maybe both hate crime and terrorism have come to be overused. It’s worthy of some contemplation. I’m gonna think on it. Thanks.
Except that won’t search things on the Member Feed, right? If it does, that’s a problem and Ricochet should fix it…
I think the distinction between premeditated vs. heat-of-the-moment murder would cover your example. Most bank robbers don’t go into the bank intending to kill five employees, they only start shooting when something goes wrong, the guard pulls out his gun or one of the robbers panics.
A more releveant example might be: is there a moral difference between a gang member who meticulously plans in a premeditated fashion the drive-by killing of five members of a rival gang, vs. killing five Jews leaving a synagogue?
I was imagining one of those movie heists where they have pre-planned all the guards they are going to kill with their pew-pew silenced guns. But you’re right, and your example is more realistic.
This is where I have problems with hate crime laws in a practical sense: in making something a “hate crime” we are in effect meting out a more severe punishment based on the criminal’s mindset. That is, we are charging them with more based on what they were thinking, and of that I cannot approve. Murder is murder. Premeditated murder is the same regardless of whether the victims were a rival gang, a detested religion, or a neighboring family that irked you. To say that killing someone is even more wrong for X classification vs. Y classification misses that it’s still premeditated mass murder.
Exactly right.
Here’s a gray area. INAL, but charges for homicide already depend on determining “what they were thinking”, which determines whether it’s voluntary or involuntary manslaughter, second degree murder, or first degree murder. Or the difference between attempted murder, or willful, wanton, reckless endangerment. Determining intent is all over the place in the law already.
I agree it’s wrong to change the severity of the crime (in most cases) simply based on the demographic categorization of the victim (except in the case of children? Or the handicapped? Or women?). But where we can reasonably determine intent when it affects the morality of the act, maybe we should have the law reflect that recognition. Just because we can’t do it perfectly in all cases doesn’t invalidate the principle, in my opinion.