US Judge rules Muslims have a right to assault people who offend them

[Papa_Complex]

I don't hear an apostrophe "D" anywhere in that judgment.

[pauldun170]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

I don't hear an apostrophe "D" anywhere in that judgment.

Sounds like he say "I'm a Muslim". fucking lying lawyer scumbag
Guy rambles on for longer than my attention span allows but to be honest, I dont care.
I've read enough transcripts to realizes that a lot of Judges like to yap and try to "school" people who appear in front of them if they are in that kind of mood.

My concern is whether the law was properly applied.
Based on Pennsylvania state law (though I haven't sifted through case law) and the testimony I agree that Gay kung fu turtle ninja was not guilty of the Harassment charge.

I don't care if the judge lectured on how he was a super hero unicorn that liked to spread whale spunk to Ethiopian children over Yom Kippur while wathing Tom and Jerry re-runs.

Was the law correctly applied?
Apparently so.
The testimony was not exactly sparkling
There isn't any clear video evidence.
Innocent until proven guilty.
That's the way it works.

full video of incident
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=yP-X3hpCfR8

In short, I based my decision on the fact that the Commonwealth failed to prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that the charge was just; I didn’t doubt that an incident occurred, but I was basically presented only with the victim’s version, the defendant’s version, and a very intact Styrofoam sign that the victim was wearing and claimed that the defendant had used to choke him. There so many inconsistencies, that there was no way that I was going to find the defendant guilty.

[Papa_Complex]

I disagree that the law was properly applied. There was video evidence, clear or not, and it's was worth whatever it was worth. There were eye witnesses, to qualify the video evidence. In effect the judge threw out any evidence and ruled based on his outrage, over the victim's actions.

Words cannot be used as a justification for an assault.

[pauldun170]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

I disagree that the law was properly applied. There was video evidence, clear or not, and it's was worth whatever it was worth. There were eye witnesses, to qualify the video evidence. In effect the judge threw out any evidence and ruled based on his outrage, over the victim's actions.

Words cannot be used as a justification for an assault.

He wasn't charged with assault.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by pauldun170

He wasn't charged with assault.

No, he was charged with criminal harassment, right? Reading the statute it comes off as a lesser assault-like charge, as for a case in which no lasting physical harm is caused. The definition is, precisely, assault.

[EpyonXero]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

I disagree that the law was properly applied. There was video evidence, clear or not, and it's was worth whatever it was worth. There were eye witnesses, to qualify the video evidence. In effect the judge threw out any evidence and ruled based on his outrage, over the victim's actions.

Words cannot be used as a justification for an assault.

That video showed nothing. There was audio of the plaintiff yelling that hes being attacked and nothing else. Its also pretty obvious that the zombie guy was out there looking for some kind of reaction. Im not surprised the judge threw out the case, where he messed up was his little lecture.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by EpyonXero

That video showed nothing. There was audio of the plaintiff yelling that hes being attacked and nothing else. Its also pretty obvious that the zombie guy was out there looking for some kind of reaction. Im not surprised the judge threw out the case, where he messed up was his little lecture.

Perhaps so, but the only crime committed in this case was the assault (harassment, whatever). The price of free speech is occasionally being offended.

[derf]

Judge has moved due to threats

http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/29/zo...ats-criticism/

[pauldun170]

Murder vs manslaughter vs manslaughter in 2nd degree etc etc.

[pauldun170]

I definitely understand why this pisses off some people.
A man was doing his thing in the parade...free speech and all.
Some asshole gets all doochey and tries to infringe

He did something wrong.
He should be punished.
We all want him to be punished and for the judge to say otherwise...it creates anal leakage.
You should only be punished if convicted of the crime you are charged with.