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

[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.

[pauldun170]

Correct me if I'm wrong but the witness testimony was from the police officer who did not witness the alleged altercation.

18 Pa. C.S. § 2709. Harassment. (2003)

(a) OFFENSE DEFINED.-- A person commits the crime of harassment when, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another, the person:

(1) strikes, shoves, kicks or otherwise subjects the other person to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to do the same;

(2) follows the other person in or about a public place or places;

(3) engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts which serve no legitimate purpose;

(4) communicates to or about such other person any lewd, lascivious, threatening or obscene words, language, drawings or caricatures;

(5) communicates repeatedly in an anonymous manner;

(6) communicates repeatedly at extremely inconvenient hours; or

(7) communicates repeatedly in a manner other than specified in
paragraphs (4), (5) and (6).

(b) Deleted by 2002, Dec. 9, P.L. 1759, No. 218, § 1, effective in 60 days.

(B.1) VENUE.--
(1) An offense committed under this section may be deemed to have been

committed at either the place at which the communication or communications were made or at the place where the communication or communications were received.

(2) Acts indicating a course of conduct which occur in more than one
jurisdiction may be used by any other jurisdiction in which an act

occurred as evidence of a continuing pattern of conduct or a course of conduct.

(c) GRADING.-

(1) An offense under subsection (a)(1), (2) or (3) shall constitute a summary offense.

(2) (i) An offense under subsection (a)(4), (5), (6) or (7) shall
constitute a misdemeanor of the third degree.

(d) FALSE REPORTS.-- A person who knowingly gives false information to any law enforcement officer with the intent to implicate another under this section commits an offense under section 4906 (relating to false reports to law enforcement authorities).

(e) APPLICATION OF SECTION.-- This section shall not apply to conduct by a party to a labor dispute as defined in the act of June 2, 1937 (P.L. 1198, No. 308), known as the Labor Anti-Injunction Act, or to any constitutionally protected activity.

(f) DEFINITIONS.-- As used in this section, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this subsection:


"Communicates." Conveys a message without intent of legitimate communication or address by oral, nonverbal, written or electronic means, including telephone, electronic mail, Internet, facsimile, telex, wireless communication or similar transmission.

"Course of conduct." A pattern of actions composed of more than one act over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of conduct. Acts indicating a course of conduct which occur in more than one jurisdiction may be used by any other jurisdiction in which an act occurred as evidence of a continuing pattern of conduct or a course of conduct.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by pauldun170

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

Any way that you slice it, it still sounds like assault to me. The descriptive words used are the same as for assault. Seems like a needless distinction in law, to me.

Originally Posted by pauldun170

Correct me if I'm wrong but the witness testimony was from the police officer who did not witness the alleged altercation.

You're wrong. The witness, that I'm speaking of, was the Zombie Pope, who is the person that the victim was asking to help him during the incident. He saw the whole thing. When a judge throws out evidence (video) and discounts an eye witness, without reason, he creates correctable error. if this had been the other way around, with it being a defence witness and evidence, it would be cause for appeal.

[pauldun170]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Any way that you slice it, it still sounds like assault to me. The descriptive words used are the same as for assault. Seems like a needless distinction in law, to me.



You're wrong. The witness, that I'm speaking of, was the Zombie Pope, who is the person that the victim was asking to help him during the incident. He saw the whole thing. When a judge throws out evidence (video) and discounts an eye witness, without reason, he creates correctable error. if this had been the other way around, with it being a defence witness and evidence, it would be cause for appeal.

Good thing we aren't on a jury together.
We'd drive the other jurors and each other crazy.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by pauldun170

Good thing we aren't on a jury together.
We'd drive the other jurors and each other crazy.

I figure that my way out of jury duty, is to just let drop that I'm the moderator of the Law and Highway Traffic Act section, on my local board.

[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/