­
"it Is Because I Am A Black Male" in The AnswerBank: News
Donate SIGN UP

"it Is Because I Am A Black Male"

Avatar Image
anotheoldgit | 11:44 Wed 19th Feb 2014 | News
67 Answers
So that is enough to prevent these violent savages from going to jail is it?

Our justice system is at times a complete joke.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2562432/Teenager-blamed-attacks-random-strangers-young-black-male-spared-jail.html

/// When he put his bag down next to 49-year-old Hamadi Nebili, the passenger looked up from his newspaper. ///

/// Samuels stared at Mr Nebili and said: ‘Are you looking? Are you gay?’ ///

/// He then unloaded a barrage of punches at the terrified passenger, leaving him with serious head wounds which required stitches. ///

Gravatar
Rich Text Editor, the_answer

Answers

1 to 20 of 67rss feed

1 2 3 4 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The links not working for me.
Link isn't working, AOG.
Something is either up with your link, or my internet connection.

When I click on the URL, I get:

Service Unavailable - Zero size object

The server is temporarily unable to service your request. Please try again later.
Reference #15.2e45212e.1392810356.10e87019

Ohh...

It's the whole Daily Mail site.

If you try going to the home page, the same message appears.
I think the DM website has gone tilt.
AOG

Your endless linking to the Daily Mail has crashed their website.
-- answer removed --
All

Go to Google, and put in 'Nebili attack', then click on the link to the Daily Mail story. You can get to it from there...
Question Author
Sorry about the link, thank you Chewn yours did work for me.

I am also unable to obtain the Daily Mail site sp1814.

"I AM SPEECHLESS"
The story from the Evening Standard website is as follows:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However all three defendants narrowly avoided prison after they were able to show they could pay compensation to their victims.

Sentencing, Judge Sarah Paneth said: “These were two serious assaults on public transport without provocation or justification.

“I’ve been told and reject the notion that your actions (Samuels) were due to what you believed to be others’ perception of yourself as a young black male – you cannot be defended on circumstances that are habitual.

“What you all did was conform to the stereotype you so despise and brought shame to the black community and to your families.

“You all come from stable and supportive families but you do not deserve medals for travelling on public transport since the offence with no problems –millions of people do that every day.

“It was a group attack on a lone person and you are all responsible – look at it this way, I am sure the three of you would not have chosen to attack a young man with a group of friends – Mr Maisey was an easy target.

“I accept this was out of character as there is no evidence of this behaviour before or after these incidents.”

Judge Paneth then handed Samuels a suspended sentence of two years and ordered him to complete 200 hours unpaid work and pay his two victims £500 each.

Mubenga received a one year suspended sentence and Karumwi 15 months, which was also suspended. They were ordered to do 100 hours unpaid work and pay Mr Maisey £500 each.

Judge Paneth added: “I make it clear the only reason you are all not going into custody today is that these incidents are extremely out of character and isolated.”

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It would appear that the judge didn't take the (extremely lame) excuse into consideration when sentencing.

I suspect the reason they weren't jailed was a combination of first time offence, coupled with no weapons being used...but still...
AOG

The site is back up.

You can get to it from your link.
How can two incidents in 3 days be described as isolated?
Thanks sp

They were spared jail because it was their first offence and they agreed to pay compensation.
I find it difficult to understand that a young black male feels he is justified in assaulting complete strangers because they see him as a young black male - not sure there is really an answer to that one!

On the basis that the judge believes these assaults were out of character, I think he has sentenced appropriately.

I would not necessarily agree that the epithet 'savages' is appropriate in this context, given its racial connotation - it could be seen as a perception that rather adds to the defendent's position - although that does not of course in any way defend his behaviour.

i will be interested to see others' views in due course.
The link above worked ok for me.
Our justice system is becoming a joke!
It seems incredibly lenient to me. So what if it's a first offence? Can we all try anything once?
Question Author
Gromit

/// They were spared jail because it was their first offence and they agreed to pay compensation. ///

Not in Samuels case because three days earlier he had punched a train passenger.

That makes him a habitual thug, and regardless of his ability to pay compensation he should have received a stiff jail sentence, just as anyone else who came from a deprived area with the inability to pay.

They've had a brush with the law and were fortunate with their judge. With any luck they won't be troubling the courts again. If they had been sent to prison it's likely they might have fallen into a lifetime of crime.
AOG

But would the judge have known about the previous attack?
I ask, because it seems a strange thing to say - if there were two attacks within three days, why would this latest attack be considered 'out of character'?

1 to 20 of 67rss feed

1 2 3 4 Next Last

Complete your gift to make an impact