Muslim attacker receives threats, claims she is mentally unwell, not racist.

Surprise, surprise. Today’s story is from the viewpoint of the Muslim attack criminal who says that the attack is not who she is, in fact her own mother is Muslim (I’m doubtful on that one). She says the reason she behaved she did was due to mental illness, and she has been unable to get the help she desperately needs http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2017/02/huntly-muslim-attack-woman-responsible-makes-cry-for-help.html.

Megan Walton, the attacker, has now been receiving threats because of her behaviour, http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/89434079/muslim-abuser-receives-extremely-threatening-messages-of-her-own. I find this pretty shocking. Why would anyone think that it is okay to attack someone who the court system is dealing with? We have a system of justice, vigilante justice is not acceptable. I wonder if they will put the same resources into tracking down who is threatening this white New Zealand girl as they did swiftly tracking down Megan, the attacker of the Muslim girl. Somehow I doubt it will get the same level of attention. Although I hope they do track down who is threatening her. I wonder if they will claim their actions were the result of drink, drugs or mental illness too? I believe Megan’s was a result of at least alcohol that was clear by the throwing of what looked like Codys in the attack, mental illness also seems like a realistic possibility because it did seem like the rant of a crazy person, but she was clearly intoxicated so maybe it was just the drink talking. Those threatening Megan are people just choosing to threaten someone who they heard of on the news. That is creepy weird. I don’t understand why anyone would do that. Let the courts do their job.

Megan appeared in court again yesterday, after pleading guilty on Monday, she has been given bail until April 11th when she will be sentenced. She is unable to drink alcohol whilst on bail. Why is there such a delay between someone pleading guilty to a crime and their sentencing? I don’t understand this. I guess it gives the offender time to say, “I’ve had counseling, quit drinking alcohol, found a job, found somewhere to live.” But is that fair to the victim that they can have two months to look like they have turned their lives around, it could be a con, and then if they end up going to jail at the end of the two months, is it fair that they may have used the arrest to turn their life around and then it gets turned upside down again? It’s no difference to punishing a naughty child. The best course of action is to punish them directly after the event so they see the cause and effect consequences. Like if they fight with their siblings you send them to their room or take away their TV computer immediately when their behaviour is poor, don’t tell them they can keep going the way they are but at the weekend they have lost the TV, their attitude could have turned around completely by then. All the parenting books say that immediate consequences are the best, if the situation arises, I feel the courts should be the same. Dragging it out is not good for the victim, the criminal, and their families – it puts pressure on everyone, seems unnecessary to drag things out when they admit their guilt.

Time will tell if they catch those threatening Megan and it will be interesting to see what sentence is handed out. Given all the media attention it is likely she will get a harsher sentence than most, then again, if it turns out she has a mental illness she might just get off. Who knows? The New Zealand justice system is often all over the place, what happens next is anyone’s guess.

 

 

Author: revisionisteditor

Editor in charge of Revisionist Media.