Is that like 50 years ago when those doofus women (sluts!) would dress all sexy and asked to be raped?

Sort of buried the lead there, Subby, the story is that the judge gave the assaulter a pass BECAUSE the victim was a "doofus" atheist.

Wow. Just amazing.

So a guy got his ass handed to him for being a troll and we're supposed to feel bad for him?

I guess we kinda should...

R.A.Danny: So a guy got his ass handed to him for being a troll and we're supposed to feel bad for him?

I guess we kinda should...

You don't have to feel bad. The judge doesn't have to feel bad. He DOES have to uphold the law, though, and that holds that assault another person is only justified in self-defense.* And "THAT HALLOWEEN COSTUME IS INFURIATING" is not an attack that requires physical defense.

*99% sure

kingoomieiii: He DOES have to uphold the law, though

I agree with that part.

kingoomieiii: *99% sure

Without seeing the whole thing, I can only guess it was a "not real harm, no foul, especially because you were being an asshole" kinda thing. I could be wrong though.

Martin, who has done several tours of duty in the Middle East, said Perce would be put to death in those societies for his crime, but Perce wonders why that's relevant in this country.

I wonder, too.

Relatively Obscure: Martin, who has done several tours of duty in the Middle East, said Perce would be put to death in those societies for his crime, but Perce wonders why that's relevant in this country.

I wonder, too.

Accusations of the judge enforcing Sharia law in 3... 2...

Now, now, this is hard for Amurkins...atheists vs sharia...who to hate more?

You need the wisdom of Solomon, so just kill them both!

muck4doo: The guy knew he was doing it to antagonize Muslims, so I don't have any sympathy for him. He was being a douche. Would you have any sympathy for him if he was dressed in black face holding a watermelon in a parade?

No, but I wouldn't have sympathy for a man attacking him getting arrested for assault either. Freedom of expression or action does not guarantee you freedom from consequence.

I don't get it. The Pope is just the Bishop of Rome for Catholics. Muhammad was for Muslims a prophet. Both are/were just human beings. What point is there in depicting them as zombies? None of them ever claimed to be resurrected from the dead.

WI241TH: No, but I wouldn't have sympathy for a man attacking him getting arrested for assault either. Freedom of expression or action does not guarantee you freedom from consequence.

What if he had dressed up in an SS uniform with a sign denying the Holocaust took place? Questioning the existence of such events in secular history is in fact a crime in several European countries like France, Belgium, Germany, Austria, Romania, and Bosnia. But caricaturing a religious founder is not. I certainly don't think anyone should be assaulted, but immigrants could be forgiven for thinking that certain types of controversial speech are prohibited--the defendant at least claimed he thought this was the case. In most of the world it is.

Here's what I took away from this:

-Douchebag athiest wears costume that portrays Muhammed in an offensive way.
-DA taunts an obviously Muslim man
-Muslim man, being taunted individually and personally but douchebag atheist stranger, tries to rip off a sign around DA's neck, which probably has something offensive written on it
-DA, being a huge pussy who thinks he should be able to do whatever the fark he wants and suffer no consequences, complains to cops about it and presses charges
-Judge tells DA to grow a farking pair, frowns upon Muslim man, and sends them both on their way.

Sounds to me like it was pretty well handled

GleeUnit: Here's what I took away from this:

-Douchebag athiest wears costume that portrays Muhammed in an offensive way.
-DA taunts an obviously Muslim man
-Muslim man, being taunted individually and personally but douchebag atheist stranger, tries to rip off a sign around DA's neck, which probably has something offensive written on it


you should go back and reread the article then

R.A.Danny: Without seeing the whole thing, I can only guess it was a "not real harm, no foul, especially because you were being an asshole" kinda thing. I could be wrong though.

Try using that defense if you ever even brush up against a police officer and get charged with assault.

Somacandra:
What if he had dressed up in an SS uniform with a sign denying the Holocaust took place? Questioning the existence of such events in secular history is in fact a crime in several European countries like France, Belgium, Germany, Austria, Romania, and Bosnia. But caricaturing a religious founder is not. I certainly don't think anyone should be assaulted, but immigrants could be forgiven for thinking that certain types of controversial speech are prohibited--the defendant at least claimed he thought this was the case. In most of the world it is.

I would not have any sympathy for a man dressed in an SS uniform and denying the holocaust getting assaulted. But again, I wouldn't have sympathy for the person attacking him getting arrested for assault either. I'm well aware of the crime of denying the Holocaust in other countries, but those are other countries. The first amendment is a bit of a double edged sword in that you have to take the bad with the good that comes of it.

You said it's not a crime in other countries to caricature a religious founder, so why would he think it's illegal here? Even if it were, why would that compel him to attack the guy? Ignorance of the law is not a justification for committing a crime.

timujin: GleeUnit: Here's what I took away from this:

-Douchebag athiest wears costume that portrays Muhammed in an offensive way.
-DA taunts an obviously Muslim man
-Muslim man, being taunted individually and personally but douchebag atheist stranger, tries to rip off a sign around DA's neck, which probably has something offensive written on it


you should go back and reread the article then

R.A.Danny: Without seeing the whole thing, I can only guess it was a "not real harm, no foul, especially because you were being an asshole" kinda thing. I could be wrong though.

Try using that defense if you ever even brush up against a police officer and get charged with assault.

The guy was a garden variety asshole, not a cop. Tell me those crimes are treated differently.

R.A.Danny: timujin: GleeUnit: Here's what I took away from this:

-Douchebag athiest wears costume that portrays Muhammed in an offensive way.
-DA taunts an obviously Muslim man
-Muslim man, being taunted individually and personally but douchebag atheist stranger, tries to rip off a sign around DA's neck, which probably has something offensive written on it


you should go back and reread the article then

R.A.Danny: Without seeing the whole thing, I can only guess it was a "not real harm, no foul, especially because you were being an asshole" kinda thing. I could be wrong though.

Try using that defense if you ever even brush up against a police officer and get charged with assault.

The guy was a garden variety asshole, not a cop. Tell me those crimes are treated differently.

Just for the sake of argument... Try using that argument when you even brush up against a garden variety asshole cop.

The guy assaulted some dude who was doing nothing to him. He decided that his religious beliefs were more important than this guys rights. He should, therefore, have been found guilty of assault. Equal application of the law and all that. If I were the DA's lawyer, I'd advise the DA to sue him in civil court.

timujin: The guy assaulted some dude who was doing nothing to him. He decided that his religious beliefs were more important than this guys rights. He should, therefore, have been found guilty of assault. Equal application of the law and all that. If I were the DA's lawyer, I'd advise the DA to sue him in civil court.

If he could prove loss or injury sure. I believe the judge felt there was neither, thus dismissing the charges.

Reviewing the video--it does not appears that the defendant was charged with assault or battery. He was charged with "harassment." That's interesting---the defendant admitted on the scene grabbing Pierce's sign, but denied in court that he touched him. Also interesting that the defendant called police as well to report what he thought was a crime. It sounds like he was trying to make some sort of "citizen's arrest." Pierce is clearly trying to make it an issue of "my culture vs. his culture" but it sounds more complicated than that. It does beg the question of why the judge even brought up the idea of other countries' legal systems---it really doesn't seem relevant.

wow... being a doofus is the assault equivalent of wearing a short skirt to a frat party?

You doofus too, Mr Judging Man

Thank goodness Mr. Elboyama was there to defend the honor of Islam. I imagine Zombie Muhammad would have shaken the entire religion to its foundations had he not acted in its defense. Millions across the world would suddenly question their faith. But lo! a white knight emerged! The Muslim religion was saved! Feast, dance, and sing thanks to the heavens. Allahu akbar!

Lane83: Hi. Lawyer here. Lemme explain.

It was contested whether there was an assault. If Muslim Guy (MG) didn't touch Douchebag Atheist (DA), then there was no assault. If MG didn't injure DA, then he could only be guilty of offensive contact assault, which is usually a ticket-only offense.

DA's "rights" cannot be violated by a private citizen.

What the judge (most likely a municipal judge) did was throw out a ticket-only assault case because the "victim" was being a douche, and the evidence of an actual assault was weak. MG was mistaken and thought he saw something against the law, and wanted DA prosecuted. MG was informed that DA, while being classless, did not break the law.

End of story.

Perfect summary. Thank you.

Here's a picture of mohammed.

They're everywhere.