If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Man jailed for storing & showing footage of beheading
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
BBC story (don't worry, no gory bits)
First off and needless to say, it seems quite sick and pointless to store such footage on one's mobile phone. But what crime exactly has been committed here? How on earth does a man deserve to go to jail for this?
I have to wonder whether the same outcome would have occurred if the footage in question had been that of US marines shooting a wounded man to death and shouting 'oh yeah!', or images of torture from Abu Ghraib.
But that is not nearly as worrying as the fact that we seem to be heading down to an Orwellian state nightmare at an ever faster pace.
First off and needless to say, it seems quite sick and pointless to store such footage on one's mobile phone. But what crime exactly has been committed here? How on earth does a man deserve to go to jail for this?
I have to wonder whether the same outcome would have occurred if the footage in question had been that of US marines shooting a wounded man to death and shouting 'oh yeah!', or images of torture from Abu Ghraib.
But that is not nearly as worrying as the fact that we seem to be heading down to an Orwellian state nightmare at an ever faster pace.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
However it was lucky he wasn't a US Marine or else we wouldn't have been saying how wrong the jail sentence was, but asking why he wasn't in jail for life.
No - if she was distressed and felt that a crime had been committed (and as he's been jailed its fair to say she was right) who else was she going to go to?
Even if that constitutes 'breach of the peace', I don't recall a single one incident ever where that charge was involved when the accused got more than a night in jail and a fine. Two months? They must be having a laugh.
And whereas the sentence is alleged to have been prompted by the offence of 'shocking and distressing' a woman, the judge seemed to imply that the very possession of such footage was a factor in the case:
"The magistrate told Younis: "I struggle to understand why you had images on your phone entailing the death and degradation of another human being, regardless of their religion or race."
Well, none of his business to understand, really.
I would imagine this sets an important precedent. Be careful what you show or email friends from now on, because you're no longer risking just losing your job... you can now go to jail if they are 'offended and shocked' by it.
I don't think we would... but given the track record of US marines we would probably be asking whether it was him and his 'buddies' who did the beheading.
Its a awful word
the ginges cant help it!!
She possibly did, but its often too late by then. But, hey lets, blame the victim anyway. She was probably asking for it.
Not really
Its hardly a mitigating factor that he happened to have a something on his phone which he wanted to to 'cause her sleepless nights'
It may be his business, but its not his to decide to show it to someone who obviously didn't want to see it.
Its an important precedent that people cannot break the law and get away with it
I always get the feeling that you find trials a bit of an inconvenience... Much better to decide all US Marines are always guilty.
I dont know, probably just get over it, we've all been shown things in life we havent liked.
I think the key words there are 'don't know'. Personally I can see it would be rather shocking andI don't know the effect it had on her -
Seeing someone with being behead (actually being sawn off) could easily result in this women suffering from some sort of PTSD and perhaps the person who deliberately caused it (to give her 'sleepless nights') should be punished as heavily as if he'd caused physical damage.
I certainly think in some circumstances yes we should
those beheading videos are sick .. they're well worse when they have sound! :no:
Well you know what some people are like: most if not all of us have at some point winced at some unpleasant gore we got sent, only to forward it to others and/or play it from time to time. Distasteful yes, but not exactly a crime- not in a Western democracy at any rate.
As for the sleepless nights' comments, well I somehow doubt he literally wanted to do that. The expression is commonly used in many situations as a figure of speech. The judge in question comes across as rather deluded and out of touch with things to be honest.
So if you swear in public and someone claim they were genuinely shocked and distressed by it, presumably you would find getting sent to jail for two months for it a fair consequence for your act. Right?
It's not me the one who consistently ignores and breaks every law and convention in existence regarding territorial integrity, war, imprisonment, human rights, torture and unlawful killings...
.
People may not want to do a lot of things - such as speed down a motorway and kill someone. He risked causing this girl trauma and by what comes out of this case did so. He has to take the consequence of his recklessness
Well you can be, can't you. If it caused someone genuine distress (not just shock and outrage) I would expect to be punished for it. That said I'm not aware of any suffering mental trauma from someone swearing in front of them. I am, sadly aware, of people who have been traumatised by seeing horrific incidents played out in front of them, even if only in video.
I hate to say this, but you are certainly ignoring all of the above except territorial integrity by oppossing the attempt to rid the Middle East of Saddam. Now you may believe that keeping Saddam in power, was better than the alternative and its certainly a legitimate view. But there has to be an accepetance that by keeping Saddam in power torture and mass murder was likely to continue under his regime.
I would love to see some evidence of that assertion beyond what the woman herself said.
Unless it was physical assault then there was no damage.
Nope.
Bunnies. Let's look at this another way - if he had shown her a video of a couple shagging and she was turned on by it, would he then be able to take her to court for payment because she experienced good feelings because of his actions?
Suffering from idiocy is more like it. I don't suppose "the court" actually took any steps to get her sorted out, did it? I would have no problem with the guy being presented with a therapy bill, but locking him up doesn't do anything for anyone at all. Bar the anti-social nutter with the wig on, of course, who has set a nifty precedent with this crappy decision.
And my view is you're talking bollocks and have no idea idea of trauma, depression or the 101 other mental illnesses which are as bad (and often worse) than physical injuries
With regard to the starting subject, I guess we're going to have to disagree. I see where you are coming from regarding causing genuine trauma, but I still believe the sentence is ludicrously severe, and that perhaps the judge would have given a different sentenced had the footage in question been of another subject, even if the woman had claimed a similar traumatic experience.
Mental problems recquire mental solutions. Unless you've got lesions on your brain or some other physical defect then "depression" really is just a matter of how you are using your brain and body.
Aside from this - please enlighten me as to how putting someone in prison for your "trauma" cures it, removes it or alleviates it in any way shape or form.
Well, at least you are having a go at seeing the difference between facts and opinions. I know all about those things thanks. I have a fair idea what causes them too. And, unless it's physical causes, it's down to ignorance and/or poor use of physiology and mental processes on the part of the "depressed" person.
is what I said, and it seems fair enough to me. Locking the guy up is just stupid.
it gets ever more crazy.
the loonies are running the assylum for sure.
I'm not entirely sure other than to note that the beheading was a crime. Just as we jail people for having child porn on their computer - because their action "encourage" the original crime - so I guess we should look at this in the same light.
I do reacll your view on such footage, and you haven't taken the same stance here.
Why isn't your first reaction for the punishment of the person committing the act, as it would be in that case?
Can't disagree with that comment.