(02-24-2012 04:25 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  

(02-24-2012 04:01 PM)Max Power Wrote:  That website wasn't very clear on the facts but a pretty good clue is that the charge was "harassment." So what you're calling an "attack" was probably entirely verbal and not physical, nor with a threat of getting physical. Otherwise the charge would have been battery or assault. Harassment is a weak charge and I don't know about Pennsylvania law but generally requires proving beyond a reasonable doubt (as in all criminal cases) that the defendant intended to annoy, alarm or abuse someone. This requires an intention on the part of the person doing the act, and so the talk about how much it means to Muslims to see their prophet mocked is relevant because the attacker might not have been thinking clearly. Also, for all we know this "attack" might not have risen to the level of "annoyance, alarm or abuse." It sounds to me like he came out of the crowd and started arguing with the guy. Now imagine if this had nothing to do with Islam. If a guy came up to you and started arguing would you press charges for harassment? This seems like a whole lot of nothing and any talk about "creeping Sharia" is just completely ludicrous.

Didn't watch the video, did you? Pay attention starting at the 41 second mark where the man said that "he grabbed me, choked me from the back, spun me around to try to get my sign off which was wrapped around my neck...."





Here's the account from which my link apparently got the information. I should have linked this source.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/c...isses-case

Quote:The defendant is an immigrant and claims he did not know his actions were illegal, or that it was legal in this country to represent Muhammad in any form. To add insult to injury, he also testified that his 9 year old son was present, and the man said he felt he needed to show his young son that he was willing to fight for his Prophet.

Granted, the man was apparently not injured so perhaps this is why the charge was harrassment and not assault.

But the treatment of the two parties by the judge reminds me of the typical "blame the victim" mentality we see and hear from so many dopes. It's clear to me that you will look for any reason to absolve this judge for his ruling.

Max - thanks for pointing out the harassment versus assault. My first reaction was based on emotion and that the judge was an ahole that should have the decision overturned.

Mile Higher – I watched the video and found it odd that the video stops before the incident and then switches over to the guy who says what happened versus the video showing it. If it boils down to the right of anyone to criticize or make fun of god, Jesus, Muhammad, or any religious figure in America – I strongly agree with that; however I also agree with the right of any right wing Christian (Westboro Baptist agenda followers) to disagree.

I would say to appeal the decision versus a lynch mob of the judge based on an edited video. If you watch the video it states that the Muslim learned that it was not a crime to mock Mohammad in this country.