Jesus look-a-like kicked out of darts match

Originally posted by repeatoffender

Originally posted by Flavian
I've changed my mind. This isn't a non story, it is a major news story. It is evidence that aussies seem to have lost their sense of humour.

lol, not at all, 4,500 people discriminated againsed this guy because of his image, if he was asian and they were screaming out jacki chan or he was white and they were yelling out michael jackson the SHTF

Well, you can choose to style your hair like Jesus (Or the Western depiction of him). You can't really choose to make yourself look Asian or Black.

Jesus didn't really look like how he's depicted so...

I think this really goes back to being a non-issue. If the guy did absolutely nothing to receive the taunting, than yeah, the crowd were being asses. But it happens. It's not the end of the world.

Pick yourself up, and live for another day. There's no point in getting all hung up over one night, whether it was right or wrong you got singled out for something. I think we've all been on the receiving end of something in our lives. Some of us use it as an excuse to play the role of a victim, and make everyone else's lives miserable. Some of us just move on and focus on tomorrow.

If he wants, he can set up the "Victims of Drunken Dart Crowd Association" and lobby for sober dart venues. The problem with that, is once people start watching darts sober, they'll all realize darts suck ass and it was just an excuse to get sh11faced on a Wednesday night...

Originally posted by Chop_UK
One person probably started all this!!

i was at the darts last year and the crowd can be very intimidating,
yeah you go for a laugh and to get drunk at these things but some take it
way to far.

I seen some guys doin coc aine and even takin a piss in the toilet sinks!
id say its alot worse then the crowd at a footie match, a fight broke out
right next to me to and i nearly got kicked out just for being near it!!

exactly, this is what this thread was meant to encompass, the publics spiral down acceptable behaviour at public/social events

Personally i can't stand "pack mentality" .....

I find it a shame that large groups of people such as this only use their desire and enjoyment of herd behaviour for situations such as this rather than for a worthy cause....

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by daaskapital

 

You keep dragging me back.
Show me where it is against the law to verbally insult someone. Please do.

www.legislation.gov.uk...

www.guardian.co.uk...

There are three offences that someone who uses "threatening, abusive or insulting" language in a public place may been deemed to have committed. (These offences can also be committed in a private place if what is said is audible outside. They also apply to similar behaviour and the display of similar posters, pictures or signs.) All three offences fall under the Public Order Act 1986.

The least serious is under section 5. Here it is an offence to use threatening, abusive or insulting words within the hearing of someone likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress by them. So the prosecution have to show only that there was someone else present who might have been caused harassment, alarm or distress, not that anyone actually was. This person could in some cases be the police officer who then goes on to arrest the person, but the courts have taken the line that police officers, exposed to bad language on a daily basis, can be assumed to be fairly robust and far less likely to be offended than others.

Section 4A makes it an offence to use threatening, abusive or insulting language with the intention of causing someone else harassment, alarm or distress. The offence is only committed if it has that effect.

Under section 4 it is an offence to use threatening, abusive or insulting language with the intention of making someone else believe that immediate violence will be used against them or of provoking an immediate violent response. The offence is also committed if the effect of the person's language is that someone else will think that immediate violence will be used against them or a violent response provoked.

The maximum penalty for the offence under section 5 is a fine of £1,000, while someone could be sent to prison for up to six months or be fined up to £5,000 for the offences under sections 4 or 4A.

It is even arguable that the person is committing the religiously aggravated form of one of the offences. Under section 28 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, these three Public Order Act offences are treated as religiously aggravated if, at the time of the offence or immediately before, the offender displays hostility towards the victim based on the victim's membership (or presumed membership) of a religious group. Significantly, "religious group" is defined as "a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief", so abuse directed at someone for not being a Muslim (or for not sharing the same interpretation of Islam as the speaker) may come within the aggravated forms of the offences.

Originally posted by khimbar
So people act like drunken wangers and rather than throw them out, throw out the one that's done nothing wrong but is the target of their wangery?

Brilliant.

From what I have read in the new testament, it's the same mindset. I always had a hard time believing that thousands would unite in calling for his execution for no valid reason. But I can see it now. Except now instead of chanting 'crucify him, crucify him', they're just chanting his name sarcastically. This man, who's apperance is similar to many Western images of Jesus, is being escorted out for only one reason and that's because of the attitude of the people there against his image. It is disturbing that people are so upset and uncomfortable about 'Jesus' being in their midst that they unite as one voice against him to make it unbearable for him to stay.

It's simply disgusting. Hiding behind the excuse of being drunk, even more so. Once again, no personal responsibility. The human race really hasn't advanced at all.

Originally posted by Logos23
Personally i can't stand "pack mentality" .....

I find it a shame that large groups of people such as this only use their desire and enjoyment of herd behaviour for situations such as this rather than for a worthy cause....

What about victim advocacy groups that claim to be for a worthy cause but really they are just lining their own pockets by playing into people's fears?

That happens too...

What about the newspaper that does stories on stupid events like this so they can in turn earn marketing dollars off advertisers that are looking for the demographic that sees this story and is "outraged" by it, so much that it's discussed at every soccer mom gathering in the city.

"Yep, alcohol is obviously the cause of this brutish behaviour!!"

"My son would never do something like that!!!"

"I feel for that boy and his parents ought to be so proud of him for walking out of their with such dignity!!!"

"I just wish we could all do something to make sure nothing like this every happens again!!!"

Bring on prohibition... woohoo

reply to post by Gridrebel

This man, who's apperance is similar to many European or American images of Jesus, is being escorted out for only one reason and that's because of the attitude of the people there against his image. It is disturbing that people are so upset and uncomfortable about 'Jesus' being in their midst that they unite as one voice against him to make it unbearable for him to stay.

It's simply disgusting. Hiding behind the excuse of being drunk, even more so. Once again, no personal responsibility. The human race really hasn't advanced at all.

Were you an eyewitness to the event? No... Okay, so you don't really know what transpired.

reply to post by khimbar


I stand corrected....
Why no charges or arrests then if it was such a big issue. The police would have laughed at him if he had of complained.
Also they were just chanting "Jesus Jesus Jesus Jesus" like that is soooo abusive. please.

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by daaskapital

 

You keep dragging me back.
Show me where it is against the law to verbally insult someone. Please do.

Here:

Harassment, alarm or distress is a statutory offence in England and Wales. It is also a term of art used in sections 4A and 5 of the Public Order Act 1986

The offence is created by section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986:

"(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he:

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

It is very mush illegal if the person being attacked feels threatened (Which he obviously did).

The people there did break the law.

www.legislation.gov.uk...
en.wikipedia.org...

Do some research.

Edit: Ah, thank you Khimbar!

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by khimbar

 

I stand corrected....
Why no charges or arrests then?

No idea. Early days yet though. I guess it depends on if he wants to press charges.

I'm not saying rightly or wrongly, but he probably has that option.

reply to post by khimbar


I wouldn't be so sure on that. First, arrests would have to be made. And, presuming that was to happen, the CPS would then decide if it was worth prosecuting (which it wouldn't be). If the Police decide it is a matter they can handle rather than pass to the CPS, i would still highly doubt that so much as a caution would be issued - can you imagine the costs involved for tracking down and then interviewing and cautioning 4500 people? Won't happen.

Banter at a darts match, nothing more.

I have to say though, i really have no idea why he was escorted out. That just seems bizarre.

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by khimbar

 

I stand corrected....
Why no charges or arrests then if it was such a big issue. The police would have laughed at him if he had of complained.

edit on 13-12-2012 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)

If one wanted to take it further, all of those people could get nailed for "riot."

1 Riot.

(1)Where 12 or more persons who are present together use or threaten unlawful violence for a common purpose and the conduct of them (taken together) is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety, each of the persons using unlawful violence for the common purpose is guilty of riot.

(2)It is immaterial whether or not the 12 or more use or threaten unlawful violence simultaneously.

(3)The common purpose may be inferred from conduct.

(4)No person of reasonable firmness need actually be, or be likely to be, present at the scene.

(5)Riot may be committed in private as well as in public places.

(6)A person guilty of riot is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or a fine or both.

www.legislation.gov.uk...

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


It can be anything. Never be the one to spill the drinks at the bar, songs about that can go on for hours! I once saw an old bloke there who had the vaguest of resemblances to Winston Churchill (if you looked the wrong way and squinted) - cue for several hours of songs. He loved it, by the way.

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by khimbar

 

I wouldn't be so sure on that. First, arrests would have to be made. And, presuming that was to happen, the CPS would then decide if it was worth prosecuting (which it wouldn't be). If the Police decide it is a matter they can handle rather than pass to the CPS, i would still highly doubt that so much as a caution would be issued - can you imagine the costs involved for tracking down and then interviewing and cautioning 4500 people? Won't happen.

Banter at a darts match, nothing more.

I have to say though, i really have no idea why he was escorted out. That just seems bizarre.

Why wouldn't it be worth prosecuting? They have all the evidence on camera, surely?

I'd disagree it was 'banter'. Everyones definition of banter doesn't include 4000 people shouting at one person. Banter by definition, is two way. This wasn't. It was mindless drunk people abusing someone because of how he looks.

And I imagine he was escorted out before the crowd tore him to pieces in a drunken, Romanesque Gladiator frenzy.

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by Gridrebel

This man, who's apperance is similar to many European or American images of Jesus, is being escorted out for only one reason and that's because of the attitude of the people there against his image. It is disturbing that people are so upset and uncomfortable about 'Jesus' being in their midst that they unite as one voice against him to make it unbearable for him to stay.

It's simply disgusting. Hiding behind the excuse of being drunk, even more so. Once again, no personal responsibility. The human race really hasn't advanced at all.

 

Were you an eyewitness to the event? No... Okay, so you don't really know what transpired.

Really, the video and the man's comments speak for themselves. Watch the people in the video with their fists shakin' in the air chanting 'Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus'. And the man's comments about his feelings being hurt because of it.

But keep telling yourself whatever appeases your mind.

Originally posted by khimbar

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by khimbar

 

I wouldn't be so sure on that. First, arrests would have to be made. And, presuming that was to happen, the CPS would then decide if it was worth prosecuting (which it wouldn't be). If the Police decide it is a matter they can handle rather than pass to the CPS, i would still highly doubt that so much as a caution would be issued - can you imagine the costs involved for tracking down and then interviewing and cautioning 4500 people? Won't happen.

Banter at a darts match, nothing more.

I have to say though, i really have no idea why he was escorted out. That just seems bizarre.

Why wouldn't it be worth prosecuting? They have all the evidence on camera, surely?

I'd disagree it was 'banter'. Everyones definition of banter doesn't include 4000 people shouting at one person. . Banter by definition, is two way. This wasn't. It was mindless drunk people abusing someone because of how he looks.

And I imagine he was escorted out before the crowd tore him to pieces in a drunken, Romanesque Gladiator frenzy.

exactly, this guy was extracted before the cops showed up. if the that happened the crowd would have exploded then we would have seen a riot

reply to post by khimbar


Honestly? You think the crowd were going to tear him to pieces? What is wrong with people? Is everyone really that paranoid?

For god's sake, they were only singing Jesus at him. Are people really so sensitive and precious and, frankly, so self obsessed that no one is allowed to mock them?

Boymonkey has it right, there are all sorts of serious issues going on in the world and people think someone being called Jesus by a crowd is an issue? Talk about skewed priorities........

reply to post by Gridrebel


His feelings were hurt?

So what? People really need to get a grip.

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by khimbar

 

Honestly? You think the crowd were going to tear him to pieces? What is wrong with people? Is everyone really that paranoid?

For god's sake, they were only singing Jesus at him. Are people really so sensitive and precious and, frankly, so self obsessed that no one is allowed to mock them?

Boymonkey has it right, there are all sorts of serious issues going on in the world and people think someone being called Jesus by a crowd is an issue? Talk about skewed priorities........

edit on 13-12-2012 by Flavian because: grammar

Yes, because drunken people acting like pack animals in large groups are famous for never turning violent.

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by Gridrebel

 

His feelings were hurt?

So what? People really need to get a grip.

So what? So what?

The victim was being abused by the majority of the crowd (who were breaking the law). Security had to escort him out of the arena so he wouldn't be put in any further danger. I'm sure if you were in his situation, you would want to leave also.