Friday, April 17, 2009

Violent Bus Ride - The Victim Sues


The Institut Pour la Justice, headed by Philippe Schmitt, father of Anne-Lorraine, whose brutal murder in a subway in November 2007 mobilized the sympathy and anger of French Catholics, nationalists, and all those realistic enough to admit the real dangers that French citizens face every day, has created a petition demanding the removal of all charges against the policeman who put online the video of the bus attack.

As of today (April 17) there are 12,943 signatures, if we are to trust the figures in tiny print at the bottom of the petition. Those interested in signing, click here.

The above was written a few days ago, but I have not had time to put it online. Now, in view of the latest development, one can't help wondering if Philippe Schmitt and the 12,943 signatories aren't wasting their time. The following is from the blog of Yves Daoudal:

The victim of the attack in the night bus in Paris, the video of which was seen all over the Internet, has filed a suit... for violation of secrecy in the police investigation and violation of secrecy in the court inquiry.

Note:
It isn't clear who is being sued for "violation of secrecy". The Internet??

This is consistent with his interview in Le Figaro, in which he did not condemn his attackers, but rather those who spread the video and "exploited" it for political reasons (the young man is a student at Science Po').

Note: A reminder that many bloggers are connecting the victim's actions with the school he attends: the School of Political Science, which has become, from what the bloggers say, a hotbed of progressivism and radical chic.

We should add that the RATP (Paris Transport) has also filed a suit for... offense to its image. The last straw in hypocrisy and denial of reality.

According to the RATP: "Such images must remain confidential." In Daoudal Hebdo (his weekly newsletter), I point to a similar video, in Australia, sent to a television station by the police with live comments by an officer.

Different place, different mores...

Le Post (via François Desouche) provides this additional information:

Olivier Laude, the victim's attorney, explains that there will be lawsuits against the websites that keep the video online:

- Will you also pursue RuTube, the Russian equivalent of YouTube?

- You have put your finger on the difficulties encountered with sites that are not hosted in Europe or that do not respect the same rules applicable in the EU and in most big countries. There exists a system of police and judicial cooperation, even with Russia. We know that we will have obstacles to overcome but that will not stop us from acting.

- What about websites that keep the video online?

- The law of June 21, 2004 on trust in the digital sector of the economy provides that first, a notice be given, then a summons to court. We will proceed on a case by case basis for the websites that persist in keeping the video online.

- How does your client view the sequel to this affair?

- My client is calm. The attack took place four months ago. He has had time to distance himself. He does not see in it a reverse-racist attack, as you might have read. He sees it as a violent attack but one that harmed him essentially physically for a few days. He is hostile to any form of exploitation by demagogic movements.

Note: The lawyer and his client are making a total separation between the physical aspects of the attack and the motivation or intent of the attackers.

The article points out that the victim is also filing a suit against his attackers, something he did not do in December 2008 during the initial court inquiry.

FYI, there was another bus attack, less spectacular, this time in the city of Toulon. The local paper Var Matin reported the story but the article was not accessible. A "fatal error" message was all I got. However, the Google cache was still there:

Seven young persons, ages 16 -18, were taken to court yesterday (April 9) for aggravated assault committed on a minor, age 17 (...)

On Monday, Laurent was on a bus he takes regularly. Not far away, a young passenger irritated him with music played at an excessively high volume. Laurent pointed this out to him, and the situation soon degenerated. The music lover did not turn down the sound, on the contrary.

Tension mounted and insults rang out. The one with the radio did not like being reproached and began to key in a text message on his cell phone.

When the bus stopped at Place Béguin, Laurent noticed a group of youths. He did not suspect anything, until he began to get off. Then he realized that the welcoming committee was for him. It seems the music lover had called some friends...

When he tried to get back on the bus he was pulled out onto the street. And thrashed. Until, mercifully, the police of the anti-crime brigade arrived.

The young man suffered a broken nose, fractures and bleeding from the ears that could have serious consequences.

The article goes on to explain that seven persons were arrested. They confessed, saying that their goal was to take revenge on Laurent for daring to ask them to turn down the radio.

Labels: , , , ,

6 Comments:

At April 18, 2009 3:54 PM, Blogger Christopher said...

So if I'm in France, and I start to get into something with an arab or a black and he takes out a mobile device, I should consider that provocation enough to attack him, yes? I can claim self-defense based on a reasonable-man standard?
Ha ha ha, right?

 
At April 19, 2009 8:27 PM, Blogger tiberge said...

@ Christopher

If I understand your comment, the answer to your question is "No"!

First, I assume you are speaking of the second bus incident: there is absolutely nothing in the description of the crime that indicates that a passenger should attack someone (of whatever race) just because he takes out a "mobile device". There is absolutely nothing in the description that could possibly lead one to that crazy conclusion. The young man was simply trying to get off the bus and was beaten up by a group of people who had been summoned by the passenger with the cell phone.

Furthermore,they confessed.

Where does it say or imply that Laurent attacked the guy with the cell phone just because he had a cell phone???

If you are on a bus and someone takes out a cell phone, you are to do what any normal person would do: nothing.

On the other hand, if you are attacked physically, you have a right to defend yourself. You also have the right to get off of a bus without being beaten up by a gang. But Laurent was outnumbered, and lucky to escape.

The real moral of the story is: Never tell anyone to turn down their blaring radio, especially on a bus or subway.

 
At April 25, 2009 3:24 PM, Blogger Christopher said...

Tiberge, thank you for considering my comment. It appears we misunderstand each other. I was being sarcastic. Allow me to attempt to express the idea again.

First, a definition: mobile device: a small, portable mechanism whereby one can communicate digital signals wirelessly; either text, audio, or photo. Can be programmed to broadcast messages rapidly or automatically to 1-100+ other devices.

1. There appears to be a phenomena of arabs/blacks using their mobile devices to call forth their friends/colleagues/comrades for help or support in physical confrontations.
2. There does not appear to be any correlating or compensating phenomena amongst whites.
3. Indeed, there does not appear to be much, if any, correlating or compensating vigilante behavior amongst whites, save for retreat or appeal to legal authority.
4. Given 1-3, if a white (I am a white) enters into a provocative, fighting words confrontation with a black or an arab in a French city, what is the reasonable expectation that white can have if the black or arab takes out and commences communicating via mobile device? Is it:
a) that soon several of the opponents comrades will appear intent on delivering severe personal injury, i.e. that upon completion of the communication of the message the white will be in imminent physical danger; or
b) eh, it's a coincidence, in the middle of the confrontation the young man just decided to ask his mom whether he should pick-up milk for her on his way home; or,
c) something else.

The reason I'm sarcastic is that, as reasonable as it might be for the white to use for to prevent the transfer of such a message --to consider the mere movement to the mobile device an imminent physical threat, I see nothing in French law or culture, yet, that would recognize that reality on the ground. But you tell me; I'm not there.

"If you are on a bus and someone takes out a cell phone, you are to do what any normal person would do: nothing."

This is the issue. If I am on a bus dealing with a belligerent young arab male and he takes out a cell phone, I think I would be reasonable and within my rights to prevent him from issuing his call to arms. One I might best in a fight; several no way. And I have no compensating firearms or rapid response team. So if it is a choice between striking first or receiving a severe beating from his friends, what do you suggest?

 
At April 25, 2009 4:17 PM, Blogger tiberge said...

@ christopher,

Thanks so much for clearing that up. I re-read your initial comment over and over, but could not draw any conclusion other than the one I wrote.

So I'm glad we misunderstood each other. I apologize for not recognizing your sarcasm - it was a bit hard to discern!

As for your question: if you strike first you will be sent to jail for assault, racism and many other unmentionable charges, for example, you would be guilty of a "procès d'intention" (I'm not sure I have the right French term), which refers to blaming someone based on what you think his intentions are, without knowing for sure. I don't think that is a criminal offense in France, but it could be used against you at the big, highly publicized trial you would endure. Then you would be placed in a prison with Muslim or black cell-mates, who would probably finish you off and bring you some much-needed eternal rest.

If, on the other hand, you were a good boy and allowed yourself to be thrashed to bits, you would be crippled, possibly blinded, at any rate, you would hurt like hell for a few weeks, but you would have a serene conscience for not being a racist.

And no, there is nothing in French law that takes into account the fact that whites are more likely to be victims of Muslim/black violence than the reverse, and that a mobile device could well mean disaster for the white person. But there ARE laws against "hate speech" and "crimes of racism", for which (white) offenders pay dearly. I have no evidence of blacks or Muslims being incarcerated for "hate crimes" - that would collide with the laws against "racism" which have been carefully designed as a one-way street: whites are racists, blacks and Arabs are not, and cannot ever be.

 
At April 29, 2009 6:17 AM, Blogger DP111 said...

Christopher
There are wider implications to organised young Muslims appearing at the drop of a hat. This has become apparant since the Geert Wilders affair, and the Gaza deminstrations.

In the UK we had Lord Ahmed claims he did not threaten parliament with 10,000 Muslim (violent) demonstrators – he does not need to. The authorities are well aware that anything that upsets the Muslim community, a minimum of 10,000 Muslim fanatics brandishing placards – “Britain beware, 9/11 is on your way” etc, can be easily mobilised. So there is no need now for any Muslim leader to issue threats. The government has understood the message without it being mentioned, as the threats are not idle boasts but are credible.

There is another aspect to this immediate mobilisation of young Muslim men at the drop of a hat, which affects us all. Many bloggers, as well as the local press have written, that in Europe, any altercation on the street involving Muslims and other people, or the police, leads to hundreds of Muslims gathering at the spot in a matter of minutes. Now this could be just coincidence, but I’ve noted that this is happening all over Europe. This can only be if there is a communication, command/control, and conveyance system, to facilitate such a rapid response.

These are the elements of the system

1. Communication - mobile phones do the job very well.

2. Command centre - the mosque or its affiliates, or Islamic local radio stations

3. Conveyance - in most European cities the taxi service is operated by Muslims. This provides a quick and reliable service to take Muslim units to the confrontation zone.

4. Combat ready young men.

The result of this integrated system is that in any confrontation, Muslims, though a minority, are able to have local superiority in numbers at the confrontation zone. This system allowed them to gain superiority even over the London police, as apparent in the recent Gaza demonstrations.

What Muslims have done is something quite unique for a group of people who have come as immigrants. They have set-up what can only be designated as "Rapid Response units" in all the major cities of Europe. From these locations they can mount effective responses in smaller towns, even when they do not have any presence there.

Given the increased confidence of these Muslim Rapid Response units after the Geert Wilders affair and Gaza demos, they now pose a severe threat to all anti-Islam demonstrations, and I believe in the near future, a threat to the nation state.

 
At December 03, 2010 4:02 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Christopher what a difference a year makes - the EDL are here now. The muslims will think twice about coming out in numbers, they know the EDL will take it up to them anywhere they show their faces.
No Surrender

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home