Another AZU Poster Child

LINK TO ARTICLE

This is Christopher Hunnisett. He is a vigilante. In other words he's a violent coward. He served 9 years for the brutal murder of a priest he claimed abused him although there's no evidence supporting his allegations. It could be suggested that a smart lawyer would use the cliche of a child molesting priest to try and get his client off. We'll never know as Mr Hunnisett clearly doesn't believe in justice. He's since been acquitted of the murder although questions remain.

He has now admitted murdering an innocent 57 year old man. Demonstrating the strength of his bloodlust, this time he tortured the man before beating his head in with a hammer. Again he's claiming to have murdered the man as he was a 'paedophile'. The police have investigated the victim and yet again found no evidence to support Hunnisett's allegations.

People like Violent Leaves support animals like Hunnisett. Many times she has publicly stated her advocacy of the rape and murder of sexual minorities. She also targets these minorities with taunts and encouragement to kill themselves. I stand in opposition to people such as her and Hunnisett. I believe in the rule of law. I believe in innocent until proved guilty. I believe in civilised society. I can only hope that justice is done in this case and Mr Hunnisett is gaoled for a long time.

It's Time To Stop Bigotry Everywhere

As reported in The Telegraph, a disgraceful witch hunt is underway in Uganda targeting homosexuals. A local tabloid newspaper has published the names and addresses of 100 homosexual people and issued calls for their hangings. Any targeting of people of a minor sexual orientation by bigots makes my blood boil. Fortunately homosexuals are largely protected in western society now but we still have a long way to go as the bigots who'd have previously victimised them have simply moved on to others with unprotected sexual orientations. Rather than publish the names and locations of homosexuals, western bigots now demand the names and locations of paedophiles be listed publicly. Rather than make explicit calls for violence to be perpetrated on homosexuals, western bigots make implicit calls for violence to be perpetrated on paedophiles. Whilst many in western countries may sit back in smug condemnation of Uganda and their reprehensible overt bigotry, we're really not that different. Until all citizens of all countries are free from bigotry and discrimination based on their sexual orientation none are in a position to consider themselves in any way morally superior.

The Problem With Vigilantes Pt 4

LINK TO NEWS ARTICLE

LINK TO FACEBOOK GROUP SEEKING JUSTICE

Warning: Details in this case may disturb some readers

Here's the scene: a group of 13yo girls are out getting drunk in a park when a man comes and talks to them. They go back to his house with him and eventually leave after more drinking. One of them claims the man attempted to rape her and so a couple of men break into his house in the middle of the night and beat him to a pulp with a baseball bat. The man, Cory Headen, dies of his injuries.

So, you're probably asking, why wasn't this reported on the AZU site with their usual support for the gutless vigilantes? The reason would be that, yet again, the vigilantes got it wrong. It transpires that the girl was lying about the attempted rape and because these animals took the law into their own hands, an innocent man is now dead. I find it interesting that the intellectual minnows at AZU are very quick to back vigilante criminals when they target someone who ends up being guilty but conveniently ignore the numerous occasions when the wrong person ends up on the end of vigilante injustice. That's because they're hypocrites.

My thoughts are with the family of the murdered man.

A Very Sad Case

LINK TO NEWS STORY

Sometimes the justice system gets it right and sometimes it gets it wrong. In this case they've managed to do both in the one case. The short version of the tale is that a disgusting man molested a boy. The boy told his father who threw the man out of his house and beat him to the point that he needed extensive facial surgery to repair the damage. The child molester was spared gaol as the judge decided the beating he received was punishment enough. The man who beat him has been charged with assault and faces a prison term.

So, where do I believe the justice system has it right and where did it go wrong? It got it right in charging the father with assault. There is simply no excuse for what he did. Was his anger understandable? Of course it was. Would I want to beat the crap out of anyone who molested any of the children in my family? Of course I would. The difference is I have self-control and am a part of a society that doesn't allow us to beat people just because we believe it to be justified. Earlier this week in Perth a man was deliberately run down by someone driving a 4WD. After running the man down, the driver then reversed over him before driving off. What did the victim do to provoke this violence? He had observed the offender driving erratically and told him to stop it. So what do these two incidents have in common? Am I trivialising child molestation by comparing it to road rage? Of course not and the only people who would suggest so are either stupid or have an agenda (or probably both). No, both incidents involved someone deciding what he thought to be appropriate punishment and then delivering it. It's all well and good for pro-vigilante groups to look at the first case and say that he was just a filthy child molester and deserved it but the reality is one can't look at these cases in isolation. To support any vigilantism is to support all vigilantism. So, yes, the reaction of the father is understandable but, no, it's not acceptable and he should feel the full weight of the law. There is a point that need clarifying: some people try to obfuscate the issue by saying the that father was simply 'protecting' his son. That's not true. The boy had already been molested. The father was not protecting his son but rather venting his anger over what had been done. As I said; understandable but not acceptable.

So where did the justice system get it wrong? They let the child molester escape gaol. Child molestation is an awful crime and should always result in a prison term. I can only imagine how terrifying it must be for a small boy to awake to find a man groping his penis. I understand why the judge took the beating into account and it is quite reasonable that he did so. The father took it on himself to punish the offender and therefore that punishment must be taken into account when the judge considers his sentence. No reasonable person would disagree with this but even with the beating taken into account the molester should serve time.

This is a very sad case as the child will suffer for some time because of what happened through no fault of his own. The family will also suffer because the father wasn't able to control himself. There's no winners here and certainly should serve as a warning.

The Problem With Vigilantes Pt 3

The fallout from the tragic rape of an 11yo girl continues. In my previous post I concentrated on the cowardly mob attack on a man police suspect of the crime. Now, the inevitable has surfaced: an innocent man was severely beaten by a mob who thought he was the man for whom police were searching.



So, after Jacey posted on the AZU blog offering strident support for the vigilantes, has there been any comment there regarding the beating of an innocent man by another mob of vigilantes? Of course there hasn't. Things like this are their worst nightmare. They believe mobs should be free to attack people with impunity because, in their tiny minds, vigilantes never get it wrong. After all, there's nothing wrong with a bit of street justice is there?

So Jacey, what do you think should be done to the mongrels that attacked this bloke for something he didn't do? Do you really think these animals are any different to the ones that attacked Jose Carrasquillo? Why have you remained silent on this case? I'll tell you why: it's because you're a simpering, whiny little hypocrite who knows that there are no right or wrong vigilantes. There's just criminal scum who use the suffering of others as an excuse to indulge in violent behaviour. AND YOU SUPPORT THEM.

SHAME ON YOU

Of Mice And Men

This is the face of a man accused of a truly horrific crime. Last week an 11 year old girl was brutally raped. Her rape was so violent she ended up in hospital needing surgery to repair the damage done to her. Make no mistake, if this guy did actually rape that girl, he should be locked up for a long, long time. Rape is a terrible crime and anyone who commits it must face a long time behind bars.

So, what's the sting in the tail of this case? In their attempt to catch the suspect, police released his picture to get assistance from the public. He was spotted and a couple of members of the public restrained him until police arrived to arrest him. Right? Well actually, no. He was indeed spotted but when he denied being the rapist a mob proceeded to beat him senseless, including one coward using a board to bash him. In fact, the beating continued until the police arrived to stop it. The suspect was left in a critical condition in hospital. But that's ok as mob justice is fine when it comes to someone who raped a little girl right? Well, again, things are not so black and white here either. Not only is he only a suspect, the police are yet to even charge him with the crime.



I have no problem with a citizen's arrest being enacted as long as it's done in a civilised manner but, as is completely clear from the footage above, what happened here fits no-one's definition of 'civilised'. Let's face facts; whilst some of these thugs were legitimately angry about what happened to the girl, I've no doubt that a number of the mob were just exploiting an opportunity to beat the crap out of someone. In my opinion, they overstepped the mark and should be charged with assault.

In reading various comments and blog posts, I'm constantly astounded at the simple-minded people who support vigilantes. A vigilante is neither noble nor brave. The reality is that a vigilante is nothing more than a coward and a criminal and must be treated as such. What was done to the suspect in this case is no different to the mob beatings I saw on the news following the Rodney King decision in the early 90's. It was simply mob violence where a gang of people decided to bash an individual person who was unable to defend himself. The people who make comments supporting these scum try and make an argument that we have to support one side or the other. That's pure rubbish. If the suspect did rape that girl, he is a disgusting, opportunistic human being and I want to see the book thrown at him. The mob that bashed him are also disgusting, opportunistic human beings and I want to see the book thrown at them.

I again come back to the cornerstone of the western justice system: a person is to be considered innocent until proven guilty. By supporting people who go around making their own decision about who is guilty and what the appropriate punishment should be, we're supporting the undermining of our entire way of life. I don't know if this bloke is guilty of the rape but, more importantly, none of the thugs that bashed him knew either. I just hope that the family and friends of the suspect don't decide to dish out some vigilante justice of their own and attack the cowards responsible for the bashing... although I'm sure there would be plenty of misguided people who'd support them if they did.

NEWS STORY 1
NEWS STORY 2

AZU Admit Responsibility For Vigilante Attacks

I was going to post this on the comments board at AZU but it's becoming increasingly obvious that to do so is nothing short of casting pearls before swine. Trying to have a rational discussion with these people is nigh on impossible as they're either unwilling or unable to calmly address points raised or answer questions asked. They instead choose to avoid answering questions by hiding behind personal insults which really don't bother me but I see no point in raising matters of discussion if they're not to be addressed.

The current cause celebre on the AZU site is that of the attempted boycott of Amazon.com for selling books which Stitches the Cunt (SC) and co believe promote paedosexuality. Now, the arguments about whether or not a book shop should refuse to stock literature that presents an unpopular or contentious point of view is a matter for discussion elsewhere. What really caught my attention was the following snippet of discussion:

Jeremy: I wonder how your shareholders would feel about that? Do you think they'd be so interested in profit that they'd sit by and let you trigger the pedophile next door? Because that is exactly what Amazon is doing.

SC: Please be sure and ask them that question. You are exactly right.

So why did this exchange catch my eye? It was because the implications of what was said are significant. Jeremy is saying that Amazon.com are directly responsible for child molestation because they sell books which may inflame a child molester's passions and cause him/her to attack a child. Let me make it clear: the claim is that if someone buys a book from Amazon.com and is incited by the literature to molest a child then Amazon.com are directly responsible for this despicable act. SC states that she considers Jeremy's assertion to be "... exactly right.".

This claim has significant repercussions for AZU, Perverted Justice/Wikisposure and the supporters of publicly available sex offender registries. What Jeremy and SC are effectively conceding is that if some redneck vigilante reads their posts and is incited by the content to attack someone then they (the poster) are directly responsible for the attack. It's important to remember that it's not just RSOs who get attacked by vigilantes but also innocent people who are unlucky enough to be mistaken for a RSO - after all, the sort of people who resort to vigilantism aren't particularly bright and tend to make mistakes. According to Jeremy and SC, the person/group who incited the redneck through their words are directly responsible for the attack. No wonder they hide behind pseudonyms.

As I said, I was going to post this point on the AZU comments page but don't see the point as I know from experience they won't address the issue but rather throw around a few insults and then pat each other on the back for being so clever. Instead, here's the link to their post for anyone to read it for themselves.

The Problem With Vigilantes Pt 2

http://www.whec.com/article/stories/S625982.shtml?cat=566

Vigilantes are deluded sociopaths who believe that they're above the law and more important than anyone else. They have no respect for law and order and believe that they're so superior to everyone else that they are well within their rights to appoint themselves judge, jury and executioner. They're also completely wrong.

The case linked to above is a perfect example of the problem with vigilantes. In summary, a vigilante took it upon himself to post details of local sex offenders in public places as part of a campaign to stir up the public against them. Some other vigilantes took offense at this and beat the crap out of him. And herein lies the rub. One either supports the concept of vigilantism or one opposes it. You can't pick and choose the vigilantes who should be allowed. If you support even one vigilante then you lose any sort of moral right to condemn other vigilantes with whom you may disagree.

Some people who don't think things through voice their support for vigilantes when the people targeted are those they don't like. There would be many people supportive of the vigilante trying to rabble-rouse by posting flyers exposing people in the community. However, should one have supported his vigilantism, it would be extreme hypocrisy to then oppose the vigilantism of the people who bashed him. In both cases the vigilante engaged in activities with the intention of hurting the intended target... either physically or through orchestrating social exclusion (NB. There are many who would argue that the posting of flyers is aimed at provoking other vigilantes to physically attack the SO's but I'll give this guy the benefit of the doubt and presume he wasn't that vicious).

I believe in the rule of law. Anyone who breaks the law, regardless of motivation, is a criminal and should be treated as such. Further, anyone who chooses to break the law does so in the knowledge that this action brings consequences. I guess the bloke who got bashed this time hadn't taken into account the chance that his fellow vigilantes would be part of his consequences.

The Problem With Vigilantes

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,24425596-2761,00.html

This story highlights perfectly why the business of securing justice should be left to those who are trained in the area. I'm sure the fuckwits who put this pamphlet out thought they were so very smart and were securing some sort of 'people's justice' by publicly naming a convicted sex offender. Whilst the perpetrators sit back smugly enjoying their perverse schadenfreude, the original victim now has to deal with being publicly named and the ramifications of this. One of the big fears of anyone who's been sexually abused is that their ordeal is made public and sadly this is what's happened due to the selfish actions of an ignorant individual (or possibly a group of ignorant individuals).

I hope everyone responsible for this is caught and prosecuted to act as a deterrent to others.

Accused Child Molester Seeks Compo

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24282278-3102,00.html

This is an interesting case. At the moment Dennis Ferguson has only been accused of molesting a child but has been hounded across Queenland by vigilantes who seem to have no love for our Western judicial system. Now, if it turns out that he actually did what he's been accused of then obviously I reckon he should have the book thrown at him but what worries me at the moment is the undermining of our societal values of fairness. Our justice system has been founded on the principle that one must be considered as and, more importantly, treated as innocent until they've been tried in a court of law and found guilty by a jury of their peers. This central, pivotal concept is currently being compromised and eroded on a number of fronts as the difference between being accused and being found guilty is being lost on many people all the way from the neanderthal vigilante right up to those who run our countries.

So, this brings us back to the case at hand and begs the question; given that vigilantism is a criminal act, should those who are victims of it be eligible for compensation. Ferguson hasn't yet been found guilty of what he's been accused of doing but if he eventually is, does this disqualify him from being eligible for compensation arising from criminal acts committed against him? If it does, would the vigilante who committed the crime against Ferguson also be disqualified from receiving compensation should someone else decide to even things up?

My opinion is that if Ferguson has offended against someone as he's been accused, he should face the full consequences of this. If someone offends against Ferguson that person should be tried and face the full consequences of his/her actions. Once they've done their time and paid their price they should then be free to continue their lives in peace. If they are offended against, they should be eligible for any applicable compensation.