*sigh*Volf99 said:So I was on another forum and somebody brought up this article about a group of girls that apparently went up to another girl and proceed to beat the crap out of her until the police came. The victim claims that,
"We were just minding our own business but they kept shouting ?white *****? and ?white slag? at me. When I turned around one of them grabbed my hair then threw me on the ground.
?They were taking turns to kick me over and over. I thought they were going to kill me."
However when it came to sentencing the "girl gang", the article states that:
"Ambaro Maxamed, 24, students Ayan Maxamed, 28, and Hibo Maxamed, 24, and their 28-year-old cousin Ifrah Nur each admitted actual bodily harm, which carries a maximum sentence of five years? imprisonment.
But Judge Robert Brown gave them suspended jail terms after hearing mitigation that as Muslims, the women were not used to being drunk. The Koran prohibits Muslims from consuming alcohol, although Islamic teachings permit its use for medicinal purposes".
So, as the title states, England (or to be specific English court/judges), what the hell? How does the excuse "the women were not used to being drunk [because] [t]he Koran prohibits Muslims from consuming alcohol" sound logical? What does it matter what religion the accused practice? What about you escapist, what do you think about the situation?
Normally, I'm the one who plays Devil's Advocate for the group being subjected to knee-jerk responses to an oversimplified situation, but...Christ, this is just shameful. Might as well just go through the 'highlights' of the article:
"Unreasonable force"? They should be thanking God every night that they happened to encounter the one boyfriend whose sense of chivalry was strong enough that he refrained from sending the four of them to the morgue, or at least started breaking fingers.He said he accepted the women may have felt they were the victims of unreasonable force from Rhea's partner Lewis Moore, 23, who tried desperately to defend her from the attack.
Yeah. Probably because they wouldn't look very good if their defense was "A guy said something that might've been racist, so we brutally beat the nearest woman while ignoring him."Nur, who joined in the attack after initially acting as a peacemaker, said it was in fact the victim's partner who had been racially abusive, but Mr Bide-Thomas said that was not accepted by the prosecution.
*facepalm*"They're Somalian Muslims and alcohol or drugs isn't something they're used to."
Alright, England, here's a train of thought that, against all reason, America managed to work out and you didn't: you are fully responsible for your actions under any form of intoxicating substance. There are only two exceptions to this. If you were, quite simply, drugged, as was the case with one man and PCP, you are not accountable for your actions, and that only works with really hard stuff. The other is if you were given improper medication from a licensed medial practitioner.
But seriously? How is this a valid defense? Ignoring the above logic, and despite what all those PSAs would have you believe, alcohol isn't a drink that turns good people into demons. If you commit a brutal act of racial violence, I don't buy for one second that it was all alcohol at work.
Besides, Islam forbids alcohol, right? Then why the hell were they drinking? That's not some minor, unheeded passage, either. I don't buy that you're "unused" to alcohol if you have enough disregard for your religion to be wandering the streets violently drunk.