AIBU to think this man should have got a prison sentence for assault with a knife against someone who offended his religion?

[SinisterBumFacedCat]

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8xr12yx5l4o.am

He attacked a man for burning a Quran. He went at him with a blade, kicked him to the ground and repeatedly spat on him. A cowardly deliveroo rider got in a few kicks whilst he was on the floor.

The guy who burned the Quran is now in hiding due to death threats. The attacker walked free from court. There is a full video of the attack online, he is clearly a very violent person. The judge let him off because he has previous good character and was provoked into violence.

Isn’t this sending the message that actual physical violence and assault with a bladed weapon is allowed if you’re offended by something?

YABU - he shouldn’t be in prison
YANBU - he should be in prison

It’s grotesque he didn’t get a custodial sentence.

Two tier justice.

You'd think so.

To some a book is more important that a person, so hurt the book means hurt the person.

YANBU at all. It's disgusting that he's free to go smugly about his business, when there's clear video evidence that he went after someone with a knife. What a pathetic system to let him get away with it. I don't give a shit if someone hasn't had a history of violent behaviour until now. So what?

To some a book is more important that a person, so hurt the book means hurt the person.

Yes but also some are fucking idiots.

He pulled a knife and walked free? That’s terrifying.

i do hope the judge wasn’t feeling intimidated.

Burning a Quran is something that all good people (including all good muslims) should do every single day of their lives until anti-free speech / anti-freedom of expression authoritarians and extremists finally learn that in this country we love free speech and free expression.

Then once the message is fully understood I would advocate for showing respect and stopping the daily burning of the Quran.

Actually that's a point. I wonder if the judge didn't dare impose prison. I bet the knife wielding lunatic is now a hero in parts of his community. This 'religion of peace' has got a terrible record of murder, violence and intimidation.

It's maybe worth reading the sentencing remarks.(I've tried to post a link but failed, Googling :Rex v Kadri sentencing remarks" or similar should find it.

Sentenced for possession of a bladed article in a public place, and common assault ( why those charges, well CPS decision I guess).

Lots of comments from the judge about potential seriousness of the crime and an observation that Kadri sought to mislead investigators (incorrect info provided about the knife) but also lots of glowing comments about his "hitherto exemplary chatacter" and his good works, especially with regard to charities....

Does sound someone or several someones put in a good word for Mr Kadri.

We need to build more prisons I think.

He seriously injured the man's hand. It should have been attempted murder.

Its hypocrisy as well. The Quaran says not to murder. I know the guy isnt dead but someone doesnt stab someone else if they want them to live.

You needed to compare how other similar cases are sentenced before assuming that this case was unfairly decided. I wouldn’t be surprised to find that cases of common assault don’t get a custodial sentence for a first offence.

You may well be right, but the question is (for the legal beagles here) was a charge of common asssault appropriate given what we saw on CCTV?

You do that.

Meanwhile I continue to maintain this is a joke sentence, from a joke justice system and will do nothing to deter the next person whose feelz have been damaged.

Broadly, if you accept that the justice system is all about justice (and that is obviously probably not true, but we have to play the game) then sentencing should serve 3 aims.

1. A demonstration of societies disapproval of the crime. Retribution

In this case, not jailing a person for waving a weapon around clearly signals that this is "no biggle" in the scale of things.

2. An opportunity fore offender to realise they have transgressed, and guide their future behaviour - Rehabilitation

Well in this case the offender has been told "it's no biggie" so has no incentive not to repeat the crime.

3. Protection of the public from those individuals who have clearly demonstrated they are dangerous. Protection

The only reason I am protected here, is geographical separation. If I lived in London I would be less comfortable.

The sum of those three principles then server to deliver individual justice to the victims as the only power within the states gift.

If "sentencing guidelines" allow someone who waves a weapon around in public to walk the streets, then they are fucked up and need immediate correction.

Everyone is a saint, right up till the moment they aren't. And I am not prepared to gamble with the lives of innocent men, women and children in the name of some namby-pamby pseudo liberal idea of "fairness".

@SerendipityJane
It’s fine to disagree with the sentencing guidelines that wasn’t the point I was making.

The issue I was addressing was the suggestion that this case was treated more leniently. I don’t think it was. Some of the somewhat dated stats I found suggest that around 26% of cases end up with custodial sentence either immediate or suspended. The outcome of this case was not unusual and so the two tier accusations are not supportable.

The issue I was addressing was the suggestion that this case was treated more leniently.

I don't think this case has been treated "more" leniently.

However it has been treated leniently. Which suggests a whole load of other cases have been similarly treated.

So the question is how many men people are walking our streets who have gone around waving weapons "Because ....." ???

We know the answer is not zero. But how many ? And who will be the person who gets a knife to the heart because someone felt emboldened that it was OK to go home, get a weapon and return to show how "upset" they are ????

The guy who beat someone up needs charging with the violent crime he committed, and potentially a jail term.

The guy that burned the Quran needs a community service and to be honest deserves being beaten up for trying to provoke someone and being such a twat. Karma.

@themerchentofvenus

The guy that burned the Quran needs a community service and to be honest deserves being beaten up for trying to provoke someone and being such a twat.

He didn't get community service but he was fined...his court case was earlier this year.

The guy who beat someone up needs charging with the violent crime he committed, and potentially a jail term.

Fixed that for you. If it's jail for waving a weapon in public (as it should be) then it's double jail for actually harming someone.

E2A:

The guy that burned the Quran needs a community service

Why ?

No, the guy who burned the Quaran does not deserve to be beaten up. It was clearly a controversial and provocative thing to do (and I don't agree with it at all), but it does not deserve violence.
To suggest he deserved a beating, is a worrying precedent, which means a vigilante society where we it's 'justifiable' to hurt those who offend us.

I had an argument on FB with someone who is an interfaith representative for a non-mainstream religion (that's not really treated as a religion), and one that would not be tolerated in a Muslim country.

I said that the beheading of Samuel Paty in France. Paty, if you recall, was the teacher who was giving a lesson on freedom of expression and allegedly showed students the 2012 cartoons of Mohammed from Charlie Hebdo.

This 'inter-faith' person, said that the Paty was deliberately provocative and it's not surprising that he was murdered. He said that Western countries must realise that some will act with violence if their prophet was ridiculed and we should accept that and not do things that cause others to behave violently.

He called me a fascist when I said that in a secular country, no religion should be held in such regard, that teaching about the murders of cartoon employees would be murdered for digressions.

He preaches 'be kind' and sees himself as superior for his inclusive thoughts, which means apologising for murderers and blaming the victims. TWAT!

I don't believe in burning books, but we SHOULD be allowed to criticise and mock the beliefs of others, without violence being justified. This will never happen of course.

He didn’t just pull out a knife he was already carrying. He went and got it and returned to the scene. Which makes it worse in my book.

Yeah agree. Violent crime such as knife crime should always get a prison sentence unless the provocation was the other person was attacking you with their knife and you somehow got it off them in a fight maybe.
Are book burnings of holy books legal? If not then the person who did that should receive the appropriate sentence for that too. (I think it depends on the circumstances which surely is for the justice system to consider not random vigilantes).

Violent crime such as knife crime should always get a prison sentence unless the provocation was the other person was attacking you with their knife and you somehow got it off them in a fight maybe.

That isn't provocation. That is textbook self defence (which is an absolute defence to the charge if "reasonable").

We really need parliament to legislate that provocation is never a defence or mitigation (which is how it was used in this case) to violent behaviours.

Never.
Never.
Never.

There are no hurty magic words that are ever grounds for physically attacking anyone.

Endof.

He shouldn't have attacked him, but it wasn't an unprovoked assault.

He was found guilty of the crime, but the risks he poses to the community wasn't felt to necessitate a custodial sentence.

They seem like a pair of arseholes to me, and I'm glad they were both convicted. But it doesn't seem two tier to me for a first account of assault under provocation didn't mean prison. I've seen that outcome in lots of cases.

So you're saying it was a provoked assault? How so?