Atheist assaulted by Muslim, case dropped, victim criticized by judge for offending religious belief
337 replies, posted
guys guys I realize this is a religion thread and therefore shitposting is the norm but you're all missing the best part of this
[QUOTE=Noble;34912269]"I think our forefathers intended that we use the First Amendment so that we can speak our mind, not to piss off other people and other cultures, which is what you did."[/QUOTE]
That's coming out of a [b]judge[/b] in a [b]court case[/b] so legally we're allowed to use it against Westboro Baptist
[QUOTE=Paramud;34916790]The atheist didn't physically assault anyone, so I don't see how he's just as bad.[/QUOTE]
Well maybe not as bad but he should have known he was going to offend some religious idiot when he went out on the march.
[QUOTE=Grimgor13;34916932]Well maybe not as bad but he should have known he was going to offend some religious idiot when he went out on the march.[/QUOTE]
Boohoo for Mr. Religious Idiot.
[QUOTE=lavacano;34916931]guys guys I realize this is a religion thread and therefore shitposting is the norm but you're all missing the best part of this
That's coming out of a [b]judge[/b] in a [b]court case[/b] so legally we're allowed to use it against Westboro Baptist[/QUOTE]
I hope the judge gets in trouble or something because this pretty much means the Republican party is unlawful. I assume most people would side with the atheist, not that it maters, but I like to think there are people out there that aren't batshit.
[QUOTE=Chicken_Chaser;34917072]I hope the judge gets in trouble or something because this pretty much means the Republican party is unlawful. I assume most people would side with the atheist, not that it maters, but I like to think there are people out there that aren't batshit.[/QUOTE]
Trouble for what? The ruling he made in the case in no way had to do with the comment he made towards the atheist. The case was dropped because of lack of evidence.
Well the judge only made those comments AFTER the ruling. He dismissed the case because of a lack of good evidence. I completely side with the judge in his lecture to the man.
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;34916070]All three of them should be sent to jail.
(the atheist, the muslim, and the judge)[/QUOTE]
I don't think that offending people's beliefs is a criminal offense in the US.
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;34916841]Did anyone in this fucking thread even watch the video? You cant see any "assault" taking place. Hell even when the guy is claiming to be choked he is talking in a clear voice.
This is why the judge dismissed the case, there is no fucking evidence for assault. The comments the Judge made did not effect the case in anyway. He only stated that he did not believe the first amendment should be used to antagonize people. Regardless if you agree with this statement or not the judge did nothing wrong.[/QUOTE]
The man confessed to the police officer that he had committed assault. His reason for coming up and talking to the police in the first place was that he believed that insulting Islam was a criminal offense.
[quote]Mechanicsburg Police Officer Bryan Curtis told Pennsylvania’s WHTM-TV, “Mr. Perce has the right to do what he did that evening, and the defendant in this case was wrong in what he did in confronting him.”
He added, “I believe that I brought a case that showed proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and the case was dismissed, and I was disappointed.”
Elbayomy – who said he believed it was illegal to mock Muhammad – was charged with harassment. He denied touching Perce at trial, but [b]Officer Curtis said Elbayomy admitted grabbing Perce’s sign and beard the night of the incident.[/b][/quote]
[url]http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/atheist-choked-by-muslim-and-then/[/url] (the harassment charge was later dropped by the judge)
[QUOTE=Unreliable;34917451]Well the judge only made those comments AFTER the ruling. He dismissed the case because of a lack of good evidence. I completely side with the judge in his lecture to the man.[/QUOTE]
As said above, the guy confessed the assault to a police officer.
Wait? So was the parade intended to be one for atheists or just a Halloween parade?
[QUOTE=Noble;34912269][url]http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/28/judges-dismissal-of-atheists-harassment-claim-against-muslim-makes-waves/?hpt=hp_t3[/url]
While I don't necessarily agree with the stunt that the guy pulled, there was absolutely no justification for him to strike the man. I would argue that the atheist was fully within his first amendment rights, even if it was offensive. I think it's ridiculous that the judge would side with the perpetrator of a criminal act of assault & battery just because his religious beliefs were offended. The judge claims that there was a lack of evidence, though the perpetrator actually admitted to it and sought out a police officer because he thought it was a criminal offense to insult Islam. It was also captured on video.
[url]http://74.84.198.234/archives/2012/02/24/judge-tosses-charge-against-muslim-who-allegedly-attacked-atheist-for-mocking-mohammed/[/url]
Despite evidence that a criminal assault took place (you know, like the confession of the assault), the judge decided to instead harshly criticize the victim of the assault for offending people's religious beliefs.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yP-X3hpCfR8[/media][/QUOTE]
Regardless of if the Muslim was the one who violated the law by assaulting the atheist, don't forget that this wouldn't have happened if the atheist had actually respected Islam instead of intentionally starting shit. Yeah, it was within the atheist's 1st amendment, but remember that there are exceptions to every law.
That guy was intentionally provoking someone.
[QUOTE=D-Roy;34917862]Yeah, it was within the atheist's 1st amendment, but remember that there are exceptions to every law.[/QUOTE]
And this wasn't one of them.
[QUOTE=D-Roy;34917862]Yeah, it was within the atheist's 1st amendment, but remember that there are exceptions to every law.[/QUOTE]
But not for rights.
[QUOTE=Noble;34917572]
The man confessed to the police officer that he had committed assault. His reason for coming up and talking to the police in the first place was that he believed that insulting Islam was a criminal offense.
[url]http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/atheist-choked-by-muslim-and-then/[/url] (the harassment charge was later dropped by the judge)
As said above, the guy confessed the assault to a police officer.[/QUOTE]
He admitted to the police officer that he grabbed the sign and beard, being charged with assault because of that would be ridiculous. However, I could see legitimate harassment charge but harassment usually involves persistent on the perpetrators part. This really seems no more than a confrontation.
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;34918017]He admitted to the police officer that he grabbed the sign and beard, being charged with assault because of that would be ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
Grabbing and pulling someone's hair is considered assault, he also had no right to grab the man's sign either because it was not his property, regardless of if he was offended by it or not. On top of that the victim said he was choked from behind as well.
[QUOTE=znk666;34915436]I came here expecting everyone talking shit on the atheist.
Guess i was right.[/QUOTE]
"There is no such thing as extremists in religion"
-znk666
[QUOTE=Noble;34918121]Grabbing and pulling someone's hair is considered assault, he also had no right to grab the man's sign either because it was not his property, regardless of if he was offended by it or not. On top of that the victim said he was choked from behind as well.[/QUOTE]
Yes pulling someones hair could be considered assault, but the beard which the man was wearing was fake. It wasn't right for the man to grab the sign but these kind of things happen all the time during confrontations. Its ridiculous this went to court to begin with,
And the man did claim he was being choked but there isn't any evidence or eye witnesses to support this.
[QUOTE=Gereight;34917906]That guy was intentionally provoking someone.[/QUOTE]
nope
[QUOTE=LCBADs;34918303]nope[/QUOTE]
So he wasant respecting his fellow man then, why would he make a offensive costume other then to provoke someone. I thought atheists were supposed to be the logical ones, they make us look bad.
While the judge is very very wrong, if you're going to offend people, expect some sort of assault whether verbal or physical.
I feel for the muslim, that atheist was a douche, but thats wrong what the judge did
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;34918280]Yes pulling someones hair could be considered assault, but the beard which the man was wearing was fake. It wasn't right for the man to grab the sign but these kind of things happen all the time during confrontations. Its ridiculous this went to court to begin with,
And the man did claim he was being choked but there isn't any evidence or eye witnesses to support this.[/QUOTE]
That would still be considered a criminal act
[quote]Touching the person of someone is defined as including not only contacts with the body, but also with anything closely connected with the body, such as clothing or an item carried in the person's hand. For example, a battery may be committed by intentionally knocking a hat off someone's head or knocking a glass out of some-one's hand.[/quote]
[url]http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/battery[/url]
Obviously the victim was not severely injured by what the guy did. The problem here is that someone exercising their first amendment rights (no matter how offensive) was physically attacked. It's the judge's responsibility to hold someone liable for criminal acts and I don't believe that was done here.
If you read the interview on the site, it says the judge had inconclusive evidence if the muslim was actually attacking the atheist. I watched the video and he's right. I couldn't find a part of the video where it showed the attack on the atheist, other than the video saying things like "HE'S CHOKING ME" in certain spots.
I would completely agree with the majority of FP on this one, but until they get another non-biased person to come in and say he saw the attack on the atheist I have to side with the judge.
Even then this could be ruled as provocative, similar to how hardly anyone gets jail time for attacking KKK members at a hate speech rally.
[QUOTE=Dirf;34919945]If you read the interview on the site, it says the judge had inconclusive evidence if the muslim was actually attacking the atheist. I watched the video and he's right. I couldn't find a part of the video where it showed the attack on the atheist, other than the video saying things like "HE'S CHOKING ME" in certain spots.
I would completely agree with the majority of FP on this one, but until they get another non-biased person to come in and say he saw the attack on the atheist I have to side with the judge.[/QUOTE]
Why not side with the police officer who the Muslim confessed the assault to, who argued that this is a clear case of the Muslim being in the wrong?
[QUOTE=Dirf;34919945]If you read the interview on the site, it says the judge had inconclusive evidence if the muslim was actually attacking the atheist. I watched the video and he's right. I couldn't find a part of the video where it showed the attack on the atheist, other than the video saying things like "HE'S CHOKING ME" in certain spots.
I would completely agree with the majority of FP on this one, but until they get another non-biased person to come in and say he saw the attack on the atheist I have to side with the judge.[/QUOTE]
It's absolutely idiotic that they had a Muslim convert as a judge for this either way.
[QUOTE=Strongbad;34912339]However, walking around in a costume specifically designed to piss people off?
The atheist deserved what he got, regardless of the ruling being fair or not.[/QUOTE]
If the WBC got attacked for picketing funerals their case would probably go fairly high. And the attackers would most likely get charged with assault.
[QUOTE=Paramud;34920104]It's absolutely idiotic that they had a Muslim convert as a judge for this either way.[/QUOTE]
The judge is a lutheran as far as I understand.
The problem with this case is it the judge is essentially sanctify the use of self force against provocative attacks. If the muslim was offended he should have alerted the police or local authorities claiming that someone is being directly offensive of religion (admittedly wouldn't fly in the US as free speech is wider there than in Europe) but under no circumstance should the muslim have used any physical force. By doing that he is committing a crime. And even if the atheist was committing a crime his impact was far less severe than any physical harm or interaction.
[QUOTE=Paramud;34920104]It's absolutely idiotic that they had a Muslim convert as a judge for this either way.[/QUOTE]
Discrimination?
[QUOTE=Gereight;34920148]Discrimination?[/QUOTE]
Inclination towards being biased, if it were actually the case.
[QUOTE=imarawrus;34920996]Inclination towards being biased, if it were actually the case.[/QUOTE]
So Christians shouldn't be allowed to judge Christians? Put it in more familiar terms.
[QUOTE=Gereight;34921058]So Christians shouldn't be allowed to judge Christians? Put it in more familiar terms.[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying this is right, but I could see it as an issue if the judge followed Shariah over American law. It'd be like having a Chinese citizen as a judge, biased towards Chinese law.
Not that that's the case, likely.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.